Time for 1.9

[Steve Allen]

Russell Jones <russell.jones at physics.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> Andrea D'Amore wrote:
> > On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Rainer Müller <raimue at macports.org> wrote:
> >   
> >> The only thing for me would be 'rdeps' vs. 'deps --recursive' (or the
> >> abbreviated version 'deps --r'). But I guess that only bothers me, so
> >> just leave it as it is now :-)
> >>     
> >
> > Meaning that in trunk it actually os 'rdeps' but you'd like 'deps
> > --recursive', right?
> >
> > If I had to pick up one I'd choose rdeps because it is more handy even
> > if 'deps --recursive' is more self-explicative and coherent
> On a related issue, though perhaps this would cause rather than prevent 
> confusion, how about calling dependencies and dependants "depcs" and 
> "depts", a little like "authz" and "authn" in apache2?

I don't like that at all.  It is clear at a glance what dependencies and
dependents are.  What are authz and authn?  Not good to sacrifice clarity
to save a bit of typing.

Steve