On 2024.08.12 01:15, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Sun, Aug 11, 2024 at 1:27 PM Dragan Simic <dsimic@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 2024-08-10 15:15, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > >> > Still the same name for v2? Cmon. > >> > >> Yeah, I was also surprised to see that. This _isn't_ cgit. > > > > Josh addressed this point in the v2 cover letter by saying: > > > > Known NEEDSWORK: > > ... > > * Bikeshed on the name > > I do not quite consider it as as "addressed this point" to just slap > a NEEDSWORK label and doing nothing else, though. > > The original iteration had this: > > * bikeshedding on the name (yes, really). There is an active, unrelated > CGit project [4] that we only recently became aware of. We originally > took the name "cgit" because at $DAYJOB we sometimes refer to git.git > as "cgit" to distinguish it from jgit [5]. > > and then now they as well as reviewers all have seen the tentative > cgit name, saw the reaction it caused, and now know that not just > potentially confusing other project _exists_, but it does matter. > > Reviewers already have spent some time on suggesting that "git" part > should not be "c"git, as well as "rs" part may better be "sys", > etc.?. There should be _some_ response, even if it does not yet > propose a new name. > > If it acknowledged that the time and knowledge reviewers gave the > topic were appreciated, e.g., "The proposers of this topic saw THIS > point and THAT point as a input that we WILL need to consider when > we decide on the name. We acknowledge that the name "cgit-rs" is > not ideal and needs to be changed. But we haven't reached any > concrete alternative name yet, so this round still uses the same > name", I'd call that "addressed this point", though. > > But just a dismissing "Bikeshed on the name", as if they do not care > to be mistaken as saying "those who complain about the name are only > bikeshedding and not worth listening to"? > > We should do better than that. I am quite surprised that people felt this was dismissive. So to be clear: yes, we need a new name before this lands in next. I thought that leaving that as a known needs-work item was sufficient to call that out, but I guess I was wrong. As far as proposed names go, I am not super happy with either "libgit" or "libgit3", because that seems confusing when we consider there are also a separate libgit2 and libgit2-rs projects. I know that we're using "libgit_" as a prefix for visible symbols at the moment, but I plan on renaming those once we have settled on the actual library name. I was avoiding addressing this topic in the hopes that folks might suggest additional name options, but as it stands right now, I'm leaning towards just "git-sys" for the low-level wrapper crate, "git" for the Rust API, and "git-rs" for the directory in contrib/ which will contain the crates.
