Re: underscores
Kai Henningsen writes ("Re: underscores"):
...
> Why do we need two versions of the file name?
The architecture is quite long, and it is totally redundant when the
filenames appear in the per-architecture archives.
It seems to me to be a good idea to try to save people who have to
type filenames (not everyone has completion all the time !) or scan
directory listings (will use up more space and be more cluttered) the
unnecessary extra effort and hassle of yet another piece of guff in
the filename.
If we design the filename structure right then it can be totally
unambiguous whether an architecture is present.
...
> Why not simply leave the name as-is? It seems to me that would reduce
> possible confusion and even make those scripts simpler.
As I've said before, we should be designing for people, not for
computers - computers are here to serve us, not the other way around.
Ian.
Reply to: