[libre-riscv-dev] [Bug 180] New: Decide how to spell Libre-SOC

[Hendrik Boom]

On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 01:30:10PM -0800, Jacob Lifshay wrote:
> Making sure everyone sees this
> 
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020, 13:19 <bugzilla-daemon at libre-riscv.org> wrote:
> 
> > http://bugs.libre-riscv.org/show_bug.cgi?id=180
> >
> >             Bug ID: 180
> >            Summary: Decide how to spell Libre-SOC
> >            Product: Libre Shakti M-Class
> >            Version: unspecified
> >           Hardware: Other
> >                 OS: Other
> >             Status: CONFIRMED
> >           Severity: enhancement
> >           Priority: ---
> >          Component: Specification
> >           Assignee: lkcl at lkcl.net
> >           Reporter: programmerjake at gmail.com
> >                 CC: libre-riscv-dev at lists.libre-riscv.org
> >           Deadline: 2020-02-26
> >    NLnet milestone: ---
> >
> > We need to make a decision if we are going with Libre-SOC, LibreSOC, or
> > something else. In order to have a central location to keep track of
> > everyone's
> > opinions, I figured we can have a check list of people in the top comment
> > here.
> >
> > If you can't edit the top comment, post a comment asking someone (Luke and
> > me
> > can, idk about everyone else) to edit it for you.

I don't seem to have a login.  But for what I've done here so far I don't think I 
really need one.

But if we are looking for consistenty, it should also be the name used in the URL.
That would seem to rule out libresoc.

I think libre-soc is fine.

But an alternative to libre-soc might be to use the French convention that libre
is a suffix ajdective, giving soclibre or soc-libre.

> >
> > Remember that we operate on unanimous decision making, so, having a

But I'm OK with any of the proposed names, so you won't need further input from me to 
get unanimity.

-- hendrik

> > majority
> > doesn't automatically mean that option wins.
> >
> > Previous discussion:
> > http://bugs.libre-riscv.org/show_bug.cgi?id=179#c4
> >
> > http://lists.libre-riscv.org/pipermail/libre-riscv-dev/2020-February/003701.html
> >
> > http://lists.libre-riscv.org/pipermail/libre-riscv-dev/2020-January/003564.html
> >
> > Not yet entered (names from mailing list discussion):
> >
> > * Cole Poirier <colepoirier at gmail.com>
> > * Hendrik Boom <hendrik at topoi.pooq.com>
> > * Immanuel, Yehowshua U <yimmanuel3 at gatech.edu>
> > * Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl at lkcl.net>
> > * Michael Nolan <mtnolan2640 at gmail.com>
> > * Michael Pham <pham.michael.98 at gmail.com>
> > * yg <whygee at f-cpu.org>
> >
> > Libre-SOC:
> >
> > * Jacob Lifshay <programmerjake at gmail.com>
> > * add your name here
> >
> > LibreSOC:
> >
> > * Jacob Lifshay <programmerjake at gmail.com> (prefer Libre-SOC)
> > * add your name here
> >
> > Leaving it to everyone else to decide:
> >
> > * add your name here
> >
> > <add other options here>
> >
> > --
> > You are receiving this mail because:
> > You are on the CC list for the bug.
> > _______________________________________________
> > libre-riscv-dev mailing list
> > libre-riscv-dev at lists.libre-riscv.org
> > http://lists.libre-riscv.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-riscv-dev
> >