Hi Peff, On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 03:26:56AM +0100, Jeff King wrote: > > - Commands like "git-foo" (so you run "git foo") are generally OK. > This is Git's well-known extension mechanism, so it doesn't really > imply endorsement (on the other hand, you do not get to complain if > you choose too generic a name and conflict with somebody else's use > of the same git-foo name). > > - When "git-foo" exists, we've approved "Git Foo" as a matching > project name, but we haven't decided on a general rule to cover this > case. The only example here is "Git LFS". The "Git Cola" project[1][2] provides two fully-featured Git porcelains, "git-cola" and "git-dag". The DAG tool is never referred to as a separate project, so shouldn't be a concern trademark wise. The project dates back to 2007, while the "Git Cola" name dates back to 2008. FTR, the name "Cola" is also a shout-out to Linux (comp.os.linux.announce). Can we continue to use the name "Git Cola" going forward? > So that's more or less where we're at now. In my opinion, a few open > questions are: > > 3. Was granting "Git LFS" the right call? I think the project is a good > one and has worked well with the greater Git community. But I think > the name has implied some level of "officialness". We obviously > need to allow "git-lfs" as a name. But should the policy have said > "you can call this LFS, and the command is git-lfs, but don't say > 'Git LFS'". I'm not sure. > > One option would have been to ask "git-foo" to prefer "Foo for Git" > instead of "Git Foo" in their branding (it's too late now for "Git > LFS", so this is a hypothetical question for future requests now). > > -Peff In my (biased) opinion, granting "Git LFS" was the right call. As long as the project is clearly a separate, but primarily Git-centric, project then it seems like the right approach to allow "Git Foo" for open source projects that contribute positively to the Git ecosystem. Lastly, due to time constraints, the Git Cola logo is a tweaked version of the Git logo, which may convey a level of "officialness" that might be unwanted. We can work on a replacement if desired. Part of keeping the logo/visual identity close to core Git is because the tool was always meant to be strongly tied to Git's unique features. It's probably the same reason why the git-lfs branding uses similar orange/red palettes -- to convey cohesiveness. I would prefer to keep the visual identity as-is (including the logo). Can we continue to use the derivative logo for the time being until a replacement is produced? Alternatively, can we keep the logo as-is? cheers, [1] https://git-cola.github.io/ [2] https://github.com/git-cola/git-cola -- David
