Josh Steadmon <steadmon@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> 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. Yes, I had a similar initial reaction, but I guess that comes primarily from the fact that we both misjudged how "cgit" is already deeply established name that refers to something other than this project.
