{"thread":{"id":"21578","subject":"Consensus on \"Git\"","startedAt":"2009-11-11T08:32:30Z","lastAt":"2009-11-11T15:37:51Z","messageCount":10,"participants":["David Symonds","Sverre Rabbelier","Junio C Hamano","Reece Dunn","Jeff King","Johannes Schindelin","Teemu Likonen","Michael J Gruber"],"isPatch":false,"patchVersion":null,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"127297","messageId":"ee77f5c20911110032r65a60653sfeef34e3de07d17e@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"21578","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"Consensus on \"Git\"","fromName":"David Symonds","fromEmail":"dsymonds@gmail.com","sentAt":"2009-11-11T08:32:30Z","receivedAt":"2009-11-11T08:32:30Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"dsymonds@gmail.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/b22f5051cbfc11836e36cf7a690e6cde4e225d835e13295ff98d15c7a9ee3c0f?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"Hi folks,\n\nIs there consensus on \"Git\" being the standard capitalisation, versus\n\"GIT\"? I only really see \"git\" and \"Git\" on the mailing list and in\nmost external documentation and websites (e.g. git-scm.com and\ngithub.com), but git's source tells a different picture:\n\n$ cat *.[ch] | egrep -o '\\bG[Ii][Tt]\\b' | sort | uniq -c\n  36 GIT\n   7 Git\n$ cat Documentation/* 2> /dev/null | egrep -o '\\bG[Ii][Tt]\\b' | sort | uniq -c\n 284 GIT\n 155 Git\n\n\n\nDave.\n"},{"id":"127304","messageId":"fabb9a1e0911110102p3f8d005el1269b8cabfaad86e@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"21578","inReplyTo":"ee77f5c20911110032r65a60653sfeef34e3de07d17e@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Consensus on \"Git\"","fromName":"Sverre Rabbelier","fromEmail":"srabbelier@gmail.com","sentAt":"2009-11-11T09:02:25Z","receivedAt":"2009-11-11T09:02:25Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"srabbelier@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/3098?v=4"},"body":"Heya,\n\nOn Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 09:32, David Symonds <dsymonds@gmail.com> wrote:\n> Is there consensus on \"Git\" being the standard capitalisation, versus\n> \"GIT\"? I only really see \"git\" and \"Git\" on the mailing list and in\n> most external documentation and websites (e.g. git-scm.com and\n> github.com), but git's source tells a different picture:\n\nDefinitely \"Git\" or \"git\", the source code ones are probably from\nvariable names, something like \"GIT_INSTALL_DIR\" and whatnot.\n\n-- \nCheers,\n\nSverre Rabbelier\n"},{"id":"127305","messageId":"7v8wedv3a3.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org","threadId":"21578","inReplyTo":"ee77f5c20911110032r65a60653sfeef34e3de07d17e@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Consensus on \"Git\"","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2009-11-11T09:06:44Z","receivedAt":"2009-11-11T09:06:44Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"David Symonds <dsymonds@gmail.com> writes:\n\n> Is there consensus on \"Git\" being the standard capitalisation, versus\n> \"GIT\"?\n\nI am not a consensus, but from day 1, Linus talked about \"git\" (all\nlowercase) and \"Git\" was used only when it came at the beginning of a\nsentence (an usual English capitalization rule) or in a section or book\ntitle where all words (except prepositions such as \"in\", \"on\") are\ncapitalized, and I try to mimick it myself for consistency.\n\nAs a corollary, unless I spell all the other words in capital to SHOUT, I\nnever write GIT.\n"},{"id":"127306","messageId":"3f4fd2640911110121y17f0d78boadf803502e04475d@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"21578","inReplyTo":"ee77f5c20911110032r65a60653sfeef34e3de07d17e@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Consensus on \"Git\"","fromName":"Reece Dunn","fromEmail":"msclrhd@googlemail.com","sentAt":"2009-11-11T09:21:26Z","receivedAt":"2009-11-11T09:21:26Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"msclrhd@googlemail.com","avatar":null},"body":"2009/11/11 David Symonds <dsymonds@gmail.com>:\n> Hi folks,\n>\n> Is there consensus on \"Git\" being the standard capitalisation, versus\n> \"GIT\"? I only really see \"git\" and \"Git\" on the mailing list and in\n> most external documentation and websites (e.g. git-scm.com and\n> github.com), but git's source tells a different picture:\n>\n> $ cat *.[ch] | egrep -o '\\bG[Ii][Tt]\\b' | sort | uniq -c\n>  36 GIT\n>   7 Git\n> $ cat Documentation/* 2> /dev/null | egrep -o '\\bG[Ii][Tt]\\b' | sort | uniq -c\n>  284 GIT\n>  155 Git\n\nAll upper case in the sources and documentation will mean that it is\neither an environment variable (e.g. GIT_INSTALL_DIR as Sverre has\nnoted), and for preprocessor constants/definitions.\n\nHowever, those are not what you are searching for. I.e.\n\n$ grep -P '\\bGIT\\b' *.[ch]\nbuiltin-apply.c:\t * We have read \"GIT binary patch\\n\"; what follows is a line\nbuiltin-apply.c:\t\tstatic const char git_binary[] = \"GIT binary patch\\n\";\nbuiltin-cat-file.c: * GIT - The information manager from hell\nbuiltin-check-ref-format.c: * GIT - The information manager from hell\nbuiltin-commit-tree.c: * GIT - The information manager from hell\nbuiltin-diff-files.c: * GIT - The information manager from hell\nbuiltin-init-db.c: * GIT - The information manager from hell\nbuiltin-ls-tree.c: * GIT - The information manager from hell\nbuiltin-mktree.c: * GIT - the stupid content tracker\nbuiltin-read-tree.c: * GIT - The information manager from hell\nbuiltin-update-index.c: * GIT - The information manager from hell\nbuiltin-write-tree.c: * GIT - The information manager from hell\nconfig.c: * GIT - The information manager from hell\ndate.c: * GIT - The information manager from hell\ndiff.c:\tfprintf(file, \"GIT binary patch\\n\");\ndiff-delta.c: * Rewritten for GIT by Nicolas Pitre <nico@fluxnic.net>,\n(C) 2005-2007\nfast-import.c:     # GIT does not permit ':' in ref or tag strings.\nfast-import.c:  path    ::= # GIT style file path, e.g. \"a/b/c\";\nfast-import.c:  ref     ::= # GIT ref name, e.g.\n\"refs/heads/MOZ_GECKO_EXPERIMENT\";\nfast-import.c:  tag     ::= # GIT tag name, e.g. \"FIREFOX_1_5\";\nfast-import.c:  sha1exp ::= # Any valid GIT SHA1 expression;\nfast-import.c:  name  ::= # valid GIT author/committer name;\nfast-import.c:  email ::= # valid GIT author/committer email;\nfast-import.c:  tz    ::= # GIT style timezone;\nfast-import.c:\t\tdie(\"Branch name doesn't conform to GIT standards: %s\", name);\nhash-object.c: * GIT - The information manager from hell\nprogress.c: * Simple text-based progress display module for GIT\nread-cache.c: * GIT - The information manager from hell\nread-cache.c: * cache, ie the parts that aren't tracked by GIT, and only used\nsha1_file.c: * GIT - The information manager from hell\nsha1_file.c:\t\t\t\t     \" (try upgrading GIT to a newer version)\",\nsha1_file.c:\t\treturn error(\"file %s is not a GIT packfile\", p->pack_name);\nsha1_file.c:\t\t\t\" supported (try upgrading GIT to a newer version)\",\ntrace.c: * GIT - The information manager from hell\nusage.c: * GIT - The information manager from hell\nvar.c: * GIT - The information manager from hell\n\nAnd selected extracts from:\n\n$ grep -P '\\bGIT\\b' Documentation/*\nDocumentation/asciidoc.conf:# Show GIT link as: <command>(<section>);\nif section is defined, else just show\nDocumentation/everyday.txt:Everyday GIT With 20 Commands Or So\nDocumentation/everyday.txt:My typical GIT day.::\nDocumentation/git-tools.txt:   providing generally smoother user\nexperience than the \"raw\" Core GIT\nDocumentation/git-tools.txt:   is now in core GIT.\nDocumentation/git-tools.txt:   pg is a shell script wrapper around GIT\nto help the user manage a set of\nDocumentation/git-tools.txt:   Stacked GIT provides a quilt-like patch\nmanagement functionality in the\nDocumentation/git-tools.txt:   GIT environment. You can easily manage\nyour patches in the scope of GIT\nDocumentation/git-tools.txt:   gitk is a simple Tk GUI for browsing\nhistory of GIT repositories easily.\nDocumentation/git-tools.txt:   GITweb provides full-fledged web\ninterface for GIT repositories.\nDocumentation/git-tag.txt:GIT\nDocumentation/RelNotes-1.6.1.txt:GIT v1.6.1 Release Notes\n\n- Reece\n"},{"id":"127307","messageId":"20091111092731.GA17422@sigill.intra.peff.net","threadId":"21578","inReplyTo":"7v8wedv3a3.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org","subject":"Re: Consensus on \"Git\"","fromName":"Jeff King","fromEmail":"peff@peff.net","sentAt":"2009-11-11T09:27:31Z","receivedAt":"2009-11-11T09:27:31Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"peff@peff.net","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/45925?v=4"},"body":"On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 01:06:44AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n\n> > Is there consensus on \"Git\" being the standard capitalisation, versus\n> > \"GIT\"?\n> \n> I am not a consensus, but from day 1, Linus talked about \"git\" (all\n> lowercase) and \"Git\" was used only when it came at the beginning of a\n> sentence (an usual English capitalization rule) or in a section or book\n> title where all words (except prepositions such as \"in\", \"on\") are\n> capitalized, and I try to mimick it myself for consistency.\n> \n> As a corollary, unless I spell all the other words in capital to SHOUT, I\n> never write GIT.\n\nExcept for the title of every set of release notes, which all start\nwith:\n\n  GIT vX.Y.Z Release Notes\n\n? :)\n\nFor a fun (ab)use of blame, you can see who wrote each of David's\nsuspect lines with:\n\n   git grep -n \"\\bGIT\\b\" |\n   while IFS=: read file line junk; do\n     git blame -f -L $line,$line $file\n   done |\n   less\n\nMany of them are variables (e.g., \\b gets rid of \"_\", but we still have\n\"-\", so GIT-VERSION and such are still there). Many others are the title\nof the \"GIT\" section of the manpages. But there are some legitimate\nuses, too. Many of them blame to quite a long time ago, though (e.g.,\nDocumentation/everyday.txt has two uses by you in 2005).\n\n-Peff\n"},{"id":"127308","messageId":"alpine.DEB.1.00.0911111028040.19111@intel-tinevez-2-302","threadId":"21578","inReplyTo":"ee77f5c20911110032r65a60653sfeef34e3de07d17e@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Consensus on \"Git\"","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin","fromEmail":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","sentAt":"2009-11-11T09:33:20Z","receivedAt":"2009-11-11T09:33:20Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"Hi,\n\nOn Wed, 11 Nov 2009, David Symonds wrote:\n\n> Is there consensus on \"Git\" being the standard capitalisation, versus\n> \"GIT\"?\n\nThere is definitely no consensus.\n\nPersonally, I started to capitalize it as a reaction to business types \n(apparently you have to turn in your sense of humor when you get an MBA), \nwho were not happy with the abbreviation \"global information tracker\" \n(which would merit an all-capitalization a la CVS) [*1*], let alone with \nthe connotation as a British slang word.\n\nYes, in Open Source, we are used to crude, geeky humor, some of us even \naccept blunt mails, but we are embedded in a world that is called \n\"reality\".\n\nIn my experience, in this world it is much easier to tell people that your \nprogram is called \"Git\" (\"could have been John, either\") and be done with \nthe questions.\n\nCiao,\nDscho\n\nFootnote *1*: I tried once to reinterpret GIT as meaning \"Git Is \nTerrific\", but that did not fly too well. :-)\n"},{"id":"127309","messageId":"7vy6mdqu6q.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org","threadId":"21578","inReplyTo":"20091111092731.GA17422@sigill.intra.peff.net","subject":"Re: Consensus on \"Git\"","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2009-11-11T09:36:45Z","receivedAt":"2009-11-11T09:36:45Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:\n\n> Except for the title of every set of release notes, which all start\n> with:\n>\n>   GIT vX.Y.Z Release Notes\n>\n> ? :)\n\nYeah these were copied from release to release and I do not pay much\nattention to the minute details of how my tools I wrote long time ago\nspells things ;-)\n\nPerhaps I should update my scripts to generate them.\n"},{"id":"127310","messageId":"20091111093656.GB17422@sigill.intra.peff.net","threadId":"21578","inReplyTo":"20091111092731.GA17422@sigill.intra.peff.net","subject":"Re: Consensus on \"Git\"","fromName":"Jeff King","fromEmail":"peff@peff.net","sentAt":"2009-11-11T09:36:56Z","receivedAt":"2009-11-11T09:36:56Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"peff@peff.net","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/45925?v=4"},"body":"On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 04:27:31AM -0500, Jeff King wrote:\n\n> For a fun (ab)use of blame, you can see who wrote each of David's\n> suspect lines with:\n> \n>    git grep -n \"\\bGIT\\b\" |\n>    while IFS=: read file line junk; do\n>      git blame -f -L $line,$line $file\n>    done |\n>    less\n> \n> Many of them are variables (e.g., \\b gets rid of \"_\", but we still have\n> \"-\", so GIT-VERSION and such are still there). Many others are the title\n> of the \"GIT\" section of the manpages. But there are some legitimate\n> uses, too. Many of them blame to quite a long time ago, though (e.g.,\n> Documentation/everyday.txt has two uses by you in 2005).\n\nBTW, here is a much better grep (still a few false positives, but most\nlines are meanginful):\n\n   git grep -n -E \"(^|[^A-Z_-])GIT($|[^A-Z_-])\" |\n   grep -v ':GIT$' |\n   while IFS=: read file line junk; do\n     git blame -f -L $line,$line $file\n   done |\n   less\n\nYou can really see that most of the uses of GIT are ancient. I wonder if\nwe should downcase the few that are in user-visible error messages. I\nwill let somebody else spend their time on such a conversion if they\nwant, though. I've already spent enough on this. :)\n\n-Peff\n"},{"id":"127337","messageId":"87y6mdyuoo.fsf@iki.fi","threadId":"21578","inReplyTo":"alpine.DEB.1.00.0911111028040.19111@intel-tinevez-2-302","subject":"Re: Consensus on \"Git\"","fromName":"Teemu Likonen","fromEmail":"tlikonen@iki.fi","sentAt":"2009-11-11T14:58:47Z","receivedAt":"2009-11-11T14:58:47Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"tlikonen@iki.fi","avatar":null},"body":"On 2009-11-11 10:33 (+0100), Johannes Schindelin wrote:\n\n> Yes, in Open Source, we are used to crude, geeky humor, some of us\n> even accept blunt mails, but we are embedded in a world that is called\n> \"reality\".\n>\n> In my experience, in this world it is much easier to tell people that\n> your program is called \"Git\" (\"could have been John, either\") and be\n> done with the questions.\n\nYes, that’s how the language works. Proper nouns are capitalized, so in\nplain text the name of this program should always be written “Git”. Only\nin command examples it is “git”.\n\nSometimes people mix proper nouns and logos/brands. Proper nouns are\nunder the rules of the language. For example, I can’t go telling people\nthat my name must be written “teEMu” because I don’t own Finnish.\n\nIn logos the brands’ owner can try to be funny and cool and different\nand write anything they want (like “gɨT” or “GīT”).\n"},{"id":"127340","messageId":"4AFADA4F.5060403@drmicha.warpmail.net","threadId":"21578","inReplyTo":"87y6mdyuoo.fsf@iki.fi","subject":"Re: Consensus on \"Git\"","fromName":"Michael J Gruber","fromEmail":"git@drmicha.warpmail.net","sentAt":"2009-11-11T15:37:51Z","receivedAt":"2009-11-11T15:37:51Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"git@grubix.eu","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/233215?v=4"},"body":"Teemu Likonen venit, vidit, dixit 11.11.2009 15:58:\n> On 2009-11-11 10:33 (+0100), Johannes Schindelin wrote:\n> \n>> Yes, in Open Source, we are used to crude, geeky humor, some of us\n>> even accept blunt mails, but we are embedded in a world that is called\n>> \"reality\".\n>>\n>> In my experience, in this world it is much easier to tell people that\n>> your program is called \"Git\" (\"could have been John, either\") and be\n>> done with the questions.\n> \n> Yes, that’s how the language works.\n\nAnd why Dick Cheney was allowed to keep his name ;)\n\n> Proper nouns are capitalized, so in\n> plain text the name of this program should always be written “Git”. Only\n> in command examples it is “git”.\n> \n> Sometimes people mix proper nouns and logos/brands. Proper nouns are\n> under the rules of the language. For example, I can’t go telling people\n> that my name must be written “teEMu” because I don’t own Finnish.\n\nGiven that reasoning, we should really use \"Git\" whenever the program or\nproject name is meant. Is that something we can reach concensus on?\n\n> In logos the brands’ owner can try to be funny and cool and different\n> and write anything they want (like “gɨT” or “GīT”).\n\nNice!\n\nMichael\n"}]}