On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 2:48 PM, K. Peachey p858snake@gmail.com wrote:
I think it's actually better completely out from the current extension for a few reasons,
- MF1 is currently a cluster extension so all the code needs to be
reviewed before deployed
- MF1 is already regularly deployed (close to weekly iirc)
- John is working on having it [MF2] operate in a completely different
method than current [MF1] so it would avoid possible breakage and compatibility issues
I think you make good points here - we definitely understand the logic. A lot of the things I think John is planning to address in his new extension are things that we also would like to see in the existing MobileFrontend extension, so hopefully we will be able to still coordinate and work together to minimize duplicated work.
However, we feel that naming the rewrite 'MobileFrontend2' is
problematic
as users have already started to confuse it with the current extension.
Whom? It's not like it's really advertised anywhere apart from CR and SVN so it shouldn't be causing that many issues at the current stage.
Place a '2' after an existing extension name implies that it is an improved, and newer, version of an existing extension. Assuming John will be building his extension as something completely different from the existing MobileFrontend (like you outlined above), it is inappropriate to name it 'MobileFrontend2'. We should work to find an acceptable alternative that makes its functionality clear, and clearly differentiates it from the existing MobileFrontend extension.