[MTOS-dev] Welcome to MTOS-dev

[Byrne Reese]

In the interest of progress then, let me summarize what I have heard so far
and see if don't have consensus.

There have been:
* 3+ votes for movabletype-os/opensource (I am counting my own vote too)
* 1 vote for movabletype-* (for auto complete purposes)
* a minority of support for other options presented.

So let's go with movabletype-os.

If there are other package manager/writers out there, let's use this naming
convention for non-debian packages as well.

Byrne


On 12/13/07 5:49 AM, "Dominic Hargreaves" <dom at earth.li> wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 03:49:55PM -0800, Byrne Reese wrote:
>> It might... But the only concern I have is introducing any ambiguity about
>> what people are installing.
>> 
>> Technically the product name for MTOS is "Movable Type Open Source" as the
>> name "Movable Type" by itself is reserved for our commercial product.
>> 
>> Do you think it would be weird to call it:
>> 
>> * movabletype-os
>> * movabletype-opensource
> 
> I would be happy to go ahead with one of these names.
> 
>> One of those would be my preference from a 6A perspective.
>> 
>> But do you think those names would be too redundant? I suppose though, that
>> if we ever built a debian package for the commercial product we could call
>> it:
>> 
>> * movabletype-pro (for the Professional Pack)
>> * movabletype-ent (for the Enterprise Solution)
> 
> Yup, this makes sense.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Dominic.