Re: REQUEST: Name change for Anjuta 2

["John (J5) Palmieri" <johnp martianrock com>]

Hey Jeroen,

I'm willing to go ahead and do all the grunt work as long as good name
can be found.  I can do it on my own copy and send in a huge diff. 
Doing a preliminary grep shows me this is not an easy task but it would
be made easier as long as no outside modules reference Anjuta objects by
name (they technicaly should only reference public interfaces).  Also
any long tales of tragedy involving the last epic adventure in renaming
would help me avoid any pitfalls ;-)

--
J5

On Tue, 2003-07-01 at 03:20, Jeroen Zwartepoorte wrote:
> Hi John,
> 
> While i agree that a namechange might be good so people know the
> difference between the two projects, it requires quite a lot of changes
> to the source itself. And we've already done this once before going from
> gIDE to anjuta2. Calling it Gnome Development Studio (gds for short)
> sucks for a project name (ideally i'd like to call it "evolution"; that
> just fits so much better with a development tool than a groupware tool
> ;) )
> 
> What do other people think of this? Gustavo, Naba, Dave?
> 
> Jeroen
> 
> On Tue, 2003-07-01 at 05:33, John (J5) Palmieri wrote:
> > I don't know if Anjuta2 will ever become the focus of the core Anjuta
> > team now that Anjuta 1 for Gnome 2 has been gaining so much steam.  I
> > however have expressed my feelings that Anjuta 2 is great codebase that
> > not only builds on Gnome technologies but also has become a sort of
> > testbed on how those thechnologies should be used (Bonobo, user
> > configurable containers, good moduler design, etc.).  
> > 
> > I feel that despite some of the positives of Anjuta 2 it is being
> > over-shadowed by the more feature rich Anjuta project and not being able
> > to stand on its own merits.  Every time there is a new release of Anjuta
> > people get confused on what exactly is released.  Most people do not
> > look at version numbers except to see which one is bigger.  
> > 
> > I propose that Anjuta 2 be renamed to something like Gnome Development
> > Studio (though that may be a bit pretentious) and that it be refocused
> > into a development enviornment that makes working with Gnome
> > technologies easy (HIG, GObjects, Bonobo, GConf, etc.).  Anjuta itself
> > can continue on being the great general purpose IDE that it is.
> > 
> > As for those who hate to split and duplicate efforts I say that this
> > would not be the case.  Anjuta 2 features a moduler design that allows
> > its components to be reused by other programs (as in the case of
> > gtksourceview being used by gedit).  It is also my understanding that
> > Anjuta 1 can or will be able to use Anjuta 2 plugins at some point.  
> > 
> > Choice is good and while it was good intentions that led the Anjuta team
> > and gIDE team to join forces, reality stepped in and the two could never
> > realy be merged.  Now, I belive, it is time to part ways while
> > maintaining the similar goals of developing great development tools for
> > both Linux and Gnome. 
> > 
> > --
> > J5
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > gnome-devtools mailing list
> > gnome-devtools gnome org
> > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-devtools
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> gnome-devtools mailing list
> gnome-devtools gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-devtools