Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Introduce cgit-rs, a Rust wrapper around libgit.a

> Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> writes:
> 
>> On Sun, Aug 11, 2024 at 1:27 PM Dragan Simic <dsimic@manjaro.org> 
>> 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.