Re: Git trademark status and policy

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Oct 25, 2018, 05:21 UTC
Message-ID: <20181025052127.GA11460@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <20181024075533.GA11043@gmail.com>

On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 12:55:33AM -0700, David Aguilar wrote:

Show 10 quoted lines

> > So I think we should generally recommend against such generic names
> > during the naming phase. At this point, I'm not sure the pain of
> > changing now is any less than the pain of changing later if and when
> > there's a conflict.
> [...]
> 
> Thanks for the recommendation.  I'm open to changing the name in a
> future major release.  For users that already use the short "dag" name,
> we can transition over to something else if it's relatively short and
> sweet.

Going from my paragraph above, I think it is probably OK to just leave it for now (unless you prefer to use a major version boundary to do the change rather than later possibly having to deal with it on a shorter timeframe).

I have no real opinion on a replacement name. :)

Show 7 quoted lines

> There's also one more script, but it's never installed in the users's
> $PATH and is more of an internal implementation detail.  Git Cola
> includes a GIT_SEQUENCE_EDITOR-compatible "git-xbase" command that
> provides a visual interactive rebase feature.  That command should
> probably be renamed to "cola-git-seq-editor" to make that clearer, and
> also to open up the possibility of installing it in bin/ in the future
> since it is useful on its own.

Yeah, agreed. If it's not in the PATH, then it doesn't need to be git-* at all, does it?

> The rationale for two commands is that worktree diff+commit and history
> inspection are our two primary use-cases.  Everything else is provided
> as a sub-command, "git cola rebase", "git cola stash", etc. so there's
> not much pressure to add more top-level names, just these two.

Makes sense.

> Thoughts?

Everything you said seems pretty reasonable to me. Thanks for being conscientious about the naming issues.

-Peff