From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 16:48:11 GMT
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 1/3] protobuf: minimal implementation for compact in-memory structures
Message-ID: <7vei2j18hg.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTim3WeCHp=ECDBcbHjT=Guv_epL90Q@mail.gmail.com>

David Barr <davidbarr@google.com> writes:

>> How does this relate to http://code.google.com/p/protobuf/ which has a
>> very similar name?  If we do not intend to have any interoperability with
>> it, we should avoid such a confusing name, I think.
>
> The relationship is that the design is shamelessly copied.

... and this will be API and bytestream compatible with that other
protobuf?

If not, please don't use that name. It confuses people, and if somebody
wants to take libified part of our codebase into their application and
link with the real protobuf, it will get even more confusing ;-).

You can (and should) still state that the design was inspired by the other
work in the comment at the beginning of the file or something.

Thanks.