RE: naming, since all the other forks are in the same boat and just tack on a suffix (MT or 64 for example, although those are really just descriptive titles), I'd think it safe to just go ahead and do the same thing. As previously noted, I like 'AviSynth+', since it is a more general-purpose fork.
Also, the developer(s?) that worked on the dead 3.0 branch seem to be different than 2.x, and 3.0 changed things around too, yet it still kept the AviSynth name, so I wouldn't think that to be too aggressive either (especially if you pair it with a new fork name). I wasn't around for the early history, but if it seems to be a tendency for each of the major versions to have different groups of contributors working on them then there is a historical precedent involved.
How about collecting whatever suggestions there are for names and then putting it to a forum poll?
|