Doug Way <dway at riskmetrics.com> wrote:

> I think Frank's requirements here are good... the names should 
> communicate, but they shouldn't have a burden of other meaning which 
> could lead to misinterpretation.
 
Thank you.

> The latest names being discussed (Kernel/Coder/Carnival) fit these 
> criteria pretty well, I think.  (Would you agree, Frank?)  And the 
> alliteration is a nice bonus.

I love the alliteration but prefer the rhythm (the scanning) of
(Kernel/Coder/Kitchensink) (Da da Da da Da da Da) over that of
(Kernel/Coder/Carnival) (Da da Da da Da da da -- unless you speak
Portuguese).  Of course, I do not think alliteration and rhythm need to
be the overriding criteria.

I don't much like "Carnival".  I prefer "Kitchensink".  I could live
with either.  I also like "L1, L2, L3".  I sympathize (but only
slightly) with Craig with regard to "code" and "coder" but do not feel
that (mechanic, writer, audience) is an improvement; I think it actually
communicates less well.

I am looking forward to a kernel which is the minimum that can load a
changeset from the command line.  From that, all blessings flow and
thousands of load scripts can take it from there for fine-tuned
customization.

I'm sorry that I haven't been more help at picking the ideal names.


-- Frank
Teach your children to lie before it's too late