Re: git-bug: Distributed bug tracker embedded in git

>> I am a bit unhappy about the namespace grab.  Not for trademark
>> reasons: the Git trademark rules are pretty clear about this kind of
>> usage being okay.  Instead, the unhappiness comes because a future Git
>> command like "git bug" to produce a bug report with appropriate
>> diagnostics for a bug in Git seems like a likely and useful thing to
>> get added to Git some day.  And now the name's taken.
>>
>> Is it too late to ask if it's possible to come up with a less generic
>> name?
>
> Wouldn't we call such a thing "git-reportbug", or "git gitbug", with
> reference to Debian reportbug or perl's perlbug?

> 1) Accept the status quo where people do create third party tools, much
>    of which are way too obscure to matter (e.g. I'm sure someone's
>    created a tool/alias called range-diff before, but we didn't
>    care).
>
>    If those tools become popular enough in the wild they get own that
>    namespace, e.g. we're not going to ship a "git-annex" or "git-lfs"
>    ourselves implementing some unrelated features