From: Daniel Barkalow Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 17:23:23 GMT Subject: Re: Tool renames? was Re: First stab at glossary Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <7vy86e5zbf.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> On Sat, 3 Sep 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Daniel Barkalow writes: > > > I think "fetch" is more applicable to what they do. > > OK. then they are git-http-fetch and friends. How about > git-ssh-push? The counterpart of fetch-pack/clone-pack is > called upload-pack, so would git-ssh-upload make things more > consistent? I dunno. I like that idea. > > I don't think it matters very much whether something is a script or not; > > on the other hand, it would be good to have "git" list a reasonable set of > > commands to use through the interface, which would exclude, for example, > > git-merge-one-file-script, and include the above commands. > > Are you suggesting to drop -script from git-merge-one-file? > Then git-cherry should perhaps keep its current name. I'd suggest it get a different ending, like .sh or -helper. That way, it's distinct both from binaries and from scripts that people run directly. -Daniel *This .sig left intentionally blank*