19 messages in com.perforce.jamming[jamming] RFC: On the future of Jam, ...
FromSent OnAttachments
David Turner29 Jun 2001 01:48 
Werner LEMBERG29 Jun 2001 03:00 
Robert Cowham29 Jun 2001 03:57 
David Turner29 Jun 2001 04:07 
David Turner29 Jun 2001 05:29 
Arnt Gulbrandsen29 Jun 2001 06:42 
David Abrahams" <david.abrahams@rcn.com (David Abrahams)29 Jun 2001 06:49 
Jos Backus29 Jun 2001 09:30 
Beman Dawes29 Jun 2001 10:29 
David Turner29 Jun 2001 11:07 
Jos Backus29 Jun 2001 11:23 
David Abrahams" <david.abrahams@rcn.com (David Abrahams)29 Jun 2001 12:45 
Werner LEMBERG30 Jun 2001 23:36 
David Abrahams" <david.abrahams@rcn.com (David Abrahams)01 Jul 2001 05:53 
Roger Lipscombe02 Jul 2001 03:15 
David Turner02 Jul 2001 06:40 
David Turner02 Jul 2001 06:54 
Jos Backus02 Jul 2001 11:07 
Paul Moore02 Jul 2001 12:37 
Subject:[jamming] RFC: On the future of Jam, "FT Jam" and Boost
From:Werner LEMBERG (wl@gnu.org)
Date:06/30/2001 11:36:35 PM
List:com.perforce.jamming

"Marmalade" has been suggested, it seems nice :-)

1. It's a long name to type. Anything longer than "make" will deter adoption ;-)

`jelly' is even better, as someone else suggested. So I withdraw my suggestion in favour of this.

2. I think I'd like to keep the boost identity attached to the architecture somehow.

Please explain.

Werner