On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 03:08:21PM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > > 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.) Right, I think this is a sensible way to think about it. When the time comes later to call something "git bug", obviously we'd consider the overall ecosystem and weigh that. But that does not make it a good idea to pick a name that is likely to get stomped on. And the most we can do is recommend against it and let them make the decision. The Microsoft GVFS folks are in a similar situation. They are renaming the project and thinking about using git-vfs for the command name. IMHO that is too generic, and I've mentioned that, but ultimately I think it is their choice. -Peff
