Felipe Contreras wrote: > Sure, it would be nice to follow bash_completion project's convention > for these kinds of functions, if they had any, and might be useful to > ask them what they think. But we don't *have* to. And nobody is > arguing that we should ask them. Right? Or are you? No, I really am not arguing that we should ask them. Because we (or at least I) already know at least what their convention was a few years ago. However, I do encourage anyone curious to ask them instead of making up arguments about why the answer is obvious. [...] > But throwing arguments on the air, and they get angry when they get > counter-argued is not helpful. If we are going to discuss, lets > discuss, but that doesn't seem to be what you want. You want me to > blindly use the name you propose without saying a word? I do not think it is fair to call your position blind. I really would be happier if you were able to listen, and, instead of throwing out protests and debating points, to talk about your real concerns. I am guessing (but you never said!) that you find the name __git_complete ugly. That's fine. I even agree. I have mentioned that there is a namespace that your proposed alternative violates. Your response is... to refuse to believe that what I said is true or relevant? How am I supposed to have a reasonable discussion after that? This is not a debating floor. When I give what I think is relevant information, I am not requesting "please misinterpret me and shoot me down". Ciao, Jonathan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html