Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > The reason I can drop a "git-whatever" in my $PATH and invoke it as "git > whatever" is just a historical accident of how git was implemented. No. This is a very deliberate design decision, to allow people to prototype new Git commands (and to create the kind of ecosystem that allows commands to be implemented outside Git. [...] > So we don't get to say "you never asked us about git-annex, we're using > that name now" without considering how widely used it is. It's us who > decided to expose the API of seamlessly integrating 3rd party tools. I think we're talking past each other. I haven't proposed any blanket policy. I'm saying that "git bug" is a bad name for this tool: - it's hard to find with search engines - it conflicts with some likely good future changes to Git - it assumes that no one else will have some other refinement of the Git bugtracker concept, that it is the only "git bug" tool It's a namespace grab. There's nothing stopping someone from naming a command "bug", either, but that doesn't make it a good idea. (I'm not saying that was the intent --- that's just the effect.) Meanwhile it looks like a neat tool, and I'm very supportive of the idea. But you certainly still have not convinced me that the name is a good idea, or that I shouldn't be bringing this up. I'm not sure *what* you're trying to convince me of, actually. Jonathan
