Re: git-bug: Distributed bug tracker embedded in git

Hi,

Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:

On Sat, Aug 18 2018, Jonathan Nieder wrote:

quoted

Michael Muré wrote:

quoted

quoted

I released today git-bug, a distributed bug tracker

[...]

quoted

I am a bit unhappy about the namespace grab.  Not for trademark
reasons: the Git trademark rules are pretty clear about this kind of
usage being okay.  Instead, the unhappiness comes because a future Git
command like "git bug" to produce a bug report with appropriate
diagnostics for a bug in Git seems like a likely and useful thing to
get added to Git some day.  And now the name's taken.

Is it too late to ask if it's possible to come up with a less generic
name?

Wouldn't we call such a thing "git-reportbug", or "git gitbug", with
reference to Debian reportbug or perl's perlbug?

I hope you're kidding about "git gitbug".

[...]

1) Accept the status quo where people do create third party tools, much
   of which are way too obscure to matter (e.g. I'm sure someone's
   created a tool/alias called range-diff before, but we didn't
   care).

   If those tools become popular enough in the wild they get own that
   namespace, e.g. we're not going to ship a "git-annex" or "git-lfs"
   ourselves implementing some unrelated features

That's fair.  Let me spell out my thinking a little more.

This framework would lead me to rephrase my question to Michael a
different way.  Instead of saying that I'm not happy with the
namespace grab, I should say something more severe:

  Don't be surprised if Git itself makes a "git bug" command in the
  future, and be prepared to rename.

Is that preferable, in your opinion?

I still think it's a reasonable thing for me to ask about, if only to
save Michael some trouble later.

Thanks,
Jonathan