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

Linus Torvalds [off-list ref] writes:

On Mon, 5 Sep 2005, David Kågedal wrote:

quoted

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