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

Linus Torvalds [off-list ref] writes:

On Sun, 4 Sep 2005, Horst von Brand wrote:

quoted

quoted

I had the same opinion.  The counter-argument people raised when
this topic came up on the list was that it would help grepping
in the source tree.

Grepping for what?

Grepping for strings.

For example, when renaming a binary, the sane way to check that you fixed 
all users right now is

	grep old-binary-name *.c *.h *-scripts

and you catch all users.

In contrast, "grep *" will catch totally uninteresting patterns like 
object files etc.

I personally find that very useful, and I don't see _any_ point to naming 
by what _kind_ of interpreter you use. Why would _anybody_ care whether 
something is written in perl vs shell? There's no reason to name things by 
the interpreter.

But to the users (like myself), there's no point in naming it by
whether it's a script or a binary.  Since, as a user, I couldn't care
less that git-foobar is a shell script, I don't want to pollute the
command name space with "-script" suffixes.  Calling the command
git-foobar makes much more sense, and allows us to reimplement the
scripts as binaries, or whatever.

So your argument that it makes it easier for git developers to work
with the source doesn't help the user.

The consequence is maybe that the scripts should be called *-script in
the source, but be installed without the suffix?

-- 
David Kågedal