Re: a meta name for axiom, open.axiom, fricas. was: Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: [#55] Axiom doesn't run on Windows

[root]

>> >> Status: fix proposed => closed 
>> >> 
>> >> Strictly speaking, Axiom does not run on Windows
>> >> so this isn't a bug but a feature request.
>> >
>> >Tim, I guess with Axiom you mean your project.  If this is indeed the case,
>> >please do not close bugs, just because they are fixed (in one sense or the
>> >other) in this project - rather make the status "fix-proposed".  I would
>> >like to have IssueTracker used as a common database of bugs.
>> 
>> Clearly when the bug says Axiom it applies to the Axiom project.
>
>This is your definition.  From a legal standpoint you may be right.  But I must
>say that it complicates thing enormously if I have to replace "axiom" with
>"axiom, open-axiom, fricas" in every bug report.

It appears that this already exists because you can "close" a bug in 
Axiom or Fricas, right?


>> If it says Fricas or OpenAxiom it applies to those projects.
>> 
>> If you'd like to propose a meta-name that is not Axiom 
>
>Please propose such a name.  I cannot.  For me, the meta name is Axiom, and
>there happens to be a sub-project bearing the same name.  But that's my
>personal and biased view of things.

Simple. Don't use the project name in the bug report.



The meta-name isn't Axiom and I will continue to act upon anything that
says its an "Axiom" bug because it applies to the Axiom project. Just
like Waldek will act upon anything that says its a "Fricas" bug because
it applies to the Fricas project.



The fact that the Axiom project forked does not mean that the name
is suddenly generic. If, in the future, Fricas forks four times are
they all called Fricas?

This point has been beaten to death but I will continue to make the point.
The license allows you to fork the code but the project name remains with
the project. The fact that Gaby and Waldek insist on confusing the issue
just makes it all the more tedious for everyone concerned. A trivial
rename would completely clear the whole issue away. We all know this.
Waldek "almost" did the right thing but has decided to not only install
the "fricas" command but to reach out and damage the "axiom" command. That
is both irrational and aggressive. Hardly a cooperative spirit there.



Maintaining this confusion doesn't help the users. Imagine a new CAS
user who decides to download several projects like pari, maxima, 
Axiom, Fricas, and OpenAxiom. He decides to install them all and play
with them. The end result will be 3 directories of code, only one of
which can be used because Fricas and OpenAxiom step on Axiom and each
other. It is clearly "the wrong thing". And there is a trivial fix.




Who DOES it benefit? Two individuals... 

The Fricas/Axiom fork and the continuing attempt at sowing ambiguity 
is for Waldek's benefit.

The OpenAxiom/Axiom fork and the continuing attempt at sowing ambiguity 
is for Gaby's benefit. 

No-one else benefits. Nobody. 


Tim