Re: [mlmmj] Candidate for an 1.4.0.a1, glad for the work

Would be a good idea if it's a fork, but it's not. It's mlmmj.

> On 8 Feb 2023, at 08.44, Chris Knadle <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Re: using the mlmmj name, my only thought is perhaps a minor addition to the name to distinguish the fork, such as mlmmj-ng (next-generation) or mlmmj2. It's not a requirement, it's just mentioning what I typically see other projects do. I think the idea is to cover the possibility of upstream picking up their old project again and/or avoiding old/new naming clashes. If the old/same name is stuck with I don't have any objection.


--
"Why make things difficult, when it is possible to make them cryptic and
totally illogical, with just a little bit more effort?" - A. P. J