From: Dragan Simic Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2024 18:08:28 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Introduce cgit-rs, a Rust wrapper around libgit.a Message-ID: <3df4270de4e37121084aafcbce1c7450@manjaro.org> In-Reply-To: On 2024-08-12 10:15, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Eric Sunshine writes: > >> On Sun, Aug 11, 2024 at 1:27 PM Dragan Simic >> 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. I really appreciate and support your response, Junio. Brushing it off originally as "bikeshedding" did leave a sour taste, because it presented the conflicting naming as a non-issue.