Hi, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > On Sat, Aug 18 2018, Jonathan Nieder wrote: >> Michael Muré wrote: >>> I released today git-bug, a distributed bug tracker [...] >> I am a bit unhappy about the namespace grab. Not for trademark >> reasons: the Git trademark rules are pretty clear about this kind of >> usage being okay. Instead, the unhappiness comes because a future Git >> command like "git bug" to produce a bug report with appropriate >> diagnostics for a bug in Git seems like a likely and useful thing to >> get added to Git some day. And now the name's taken. >> >> Is it too late to ask if it's possible to come up with a less generic >> name? > > Wouldn't we call such a thing "git-reportbug", or "git gitbug", with > reference to Debian reportbug or perl's perlbug? I hope you're kidding about "git gitbug". [...] > 1) Accept the status quo where people do create third party tools, much > of which are way too obscure to matter (e.g. I'm sure someone's > created a tool/alias called range-diff before, but we didn't > care). > > If those tools become popular enough in the wild they get own that > namespace, e.g. we're not going to ship a "git-annex" or "git-lfs" > ourselves implementing some unrelated features That's fair. Let me spell out my thinking a little more. This framework would lead me to rephrase my question to Michael a different way. Instead of saying that I'm not happy with the namespace grab, I should say something more severe: Don't be surprised if Git itself makes a "git bug" command in the future, and be prepared to rename. Is that preferable, in your opinion? I still think it's a reasonable thing for me to ask about, if only to save Michael some trouble later. Thanks, Jonathan
