Re: Tool renames? was Re: First stab at glossary

From: David Kågedal <davidk@lysator.liu.se>
Date: Sep 5, 2005, 16:28 UTC
Message-ID: <u5tk6hveawy.fsf@lysator.liu.se>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0509050902070.3568@evo.osdl.org>

Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> writes:

Show 9 quoted lines

> On Mon, 5 Sep 2005, David Kågedal wrote:
>> 
>> But to the users (like myself), there's no point in naming it by
>> whether it's a script or a binary. 
>
> So? There's no downside.
>
> To you, as a user, you never see the "-script" ending anyway. You'd never 
> type it out, or you're already doing something wrong.

Then I'm doing something wrong. And I'm pretty sure others are too. If I'm not supposed to see the "-script" ending, then don't install it in my $PATH.

Until someone (possibly myself) writes some zsh completion code to handle git sub command, I will continue to hit TAB and see all those names.

Furthermore, the man page for "git clone" is called "git-clone-script(1)". And the "-script" suffix appears inside the documentation in various places. I see it in howtos and log messages. And the git-merge-one-file-script script is supposed to be used in a way where I have to supply the long name. Etc.

If the "-script" part is supposed to be hidden from me, why do I keep seeing it everywhere I turn?

> So to users it doesn't matter, and to developers it _does_ matter (and 
> calling them ".pl" or ".sh" or something would be _bad_), why not please 
> the developers?

I'm not suggesting we'd call them ".pl" or ".sh".

-- 
David Kågedal