On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 03:53:48PM +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > 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. And there could be a lot of examples to support my statement. > 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. Since lcitool was also your idea I didn't think that you would not like to use it and prefer the new one. Anyway, thanks for sticking with the current name. Pavel
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
