Re: Adding a "Perm" category

On Mon, 7 Oct 2002 00:25:16 +0100 "Richard Heyes" <richard@v-webmail.co.uk> wrote: > A category called Perm? Was this really agreed upon? This is a very bad > category name IMO. Well, at least this was the category name that everyone agreed on to use in CVS ("Perm_Liveuser"). I don´t particularly like it either. Of course we could use another category for the package release but then why use "Perm" in CVS in the first place? > IMO LiveUser would be best placed in Auth. Also, considering that the > website has the fuller title of "Authentication", I think this would > be most peoples first port of call when looking for Authentication, > User management, or Authorisation code (not that most people would > make a particularly big distinction between any of those...). I´d like that much better, too. But I wouldn´t really like to change the name in CVS as if I´m correct this is only possible by removing the whole directory tree and adding it again under a new name - which would mean losing CVS history? What do the other self-elected PEAR elitists say about this (just kidding, boys :-))? Regards, Markus -- Markus Wolff <wolff@21st.de>