Last day to vote/reject on proposed EOL names

[Mark Hammond]

> notepad.exe foo.sh
> 
> Well, probably
> wordpad.exe foo.sh

Sorry, but I remain skeptical - this would mean we have someone on windows, using wordpad to edit a linux shell script, who wants to check it in without testing it, and who isn't aware of the implications of this.  I guess this is possible in some shops, but I'm yet see any environments where this would be considered acceptable or actually happen.

Regardless though, I still think it would be reasonable to have that file marked as 'exact' and reject the commit.  I think having an eol option *only* handling this unusual case - and no other practical reasonable cases, isn't doing anyone any favours, least of all the vast majorty of users who really only want 2 options in practice, but need to decode many more descriptions to ensure they really are getting what they want...

Cheers,

Mark