On 02/23/15 13:00, Chris Bannister wrote:
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 09:01:22AM +0100, Christian Groessler wrote:Why not just keep the original name, "sc"? I don't think it's actively developed elsewhere, so the new improved version could be distinguished by the version number.That sounds like a recipe for confusion. Some people, no doubt still use the old version.
Could be, although I don't think so.
Is there any software that has done this? AFAIK, all forks have changed the name.
"fork" implicates two or more (independend) development branches.I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, "sc" was orphaned since at least 15 years.
So, the OP when he started to add new features/bug fixes/etc., created a "new version", not a "branch". So an obvious thing would be to bump the version number. Now if someone else shows up to independently improve the program, (s)he should
create a branch. regards, chris