On Thu, 2017-10-19 at 14:53 +0200, Pavel Hrdina wrote: > > So if your only argument against it is that you don't like it very > > much, my reply is that I do like it quite a bit and, well, I get to > > name the programs I write :) > > Well, yes and no :) you can name the program but you also need to have > an ACK from community to accept that name. "licito" is just a cool name > that doesn't tell you anything from the first glance what it is. On the > other hand lcitool tells you that it's some kind of tool and that the > "lci" part specifies what kind of tool it is. It's not only that I > don't personally like it but it also looks like some randomly chosen > name even though there is some pattern behind it. > > I vote for lcitool instead of licito. I don't feel like any of your arguments have much weight, since for most applications the name only has a very vague correlation with the functionality or intended purpose, if that: see mutt, dnf, evince, firefox, ansible and so, so many more examples. That said, point taken about the need for the community to stand behind a name before it can be adopted. Most importantly, I feel like we could both spend our time in a more productive way than argue about this, so let's just stick with the existing name unless someone comes up with a different one that manages to make everyone happy. -- Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
