Good point on the association of xgminer and cgminer - had forgotten about that stage of the project. Good reminder.
I'm really fine with any names, and I think a community chosen one is probably a good idea....probably :)
What was the 3.0 contest?
On February 4, 2014 at 11:34:57 PM, Luke-Jr (address@hidden) wrote: On Wednesday, February 05, 2014 4:08:55 AM Nathanial Woolls wrote:
> What are your (Luke) and everyone's thoughts on the name bfgminer? I think
> there are several reasons renaming the project may be beneficial in the
> long run:
I agree with the reasons for changing the name, but we'd also lose our
positive history and well-knownness to some extent as well.. Experience shows
that when the name changed last (from "cgminer", to avoid confusion), many
people couldn't "follow" the changed name over.
> So my proposition would be to choose a new name. In the past when I've
> considered this I kept gravitating back to "xgminer". I already use this
> term internally for basically meaning "whatever miner, bfgminer, cgminer,
> sgminer" when I am writing code against common miners.
I don't think we should hijack an established term - people already know
xgminer as inclusive of cgminer at least.
I thought the contest I held (around the 3.0 release) was pretty successful at
coming up with a few decent ideas; perhaps we should have something like that
again (assuming we decide to move forward on the name change)?
Luke
|