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

On Sat, Aug 18 2018, Jonathan Nieder wrote:

Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:

quoted

The reason I can drop a "git-whatever" in my $PATH and invoke it as "git
whatever" is just a historical accident of how git was implemented.

No.  This is a very deliberate design decision, to allow people to
prototype new Git commands (and to create the kind of ecosystem that
allows commands to be implemented outside Git.

[...]

quoted

So we don't get to say "you never asked us about git-annex, we're using
that name now" without considering how widely used it is. It's us who
decided to expose the API of seamlessly integrating 3rd party tools.

I think we're talking past each other.  I haven't proposed any blanket
policy.  I'm saying that "git bug" is a bad name for this tool:

 - it's hard to find with search engines
 - it conflicts with some likely good future changes to Git
 - it assumes that no one else will have some other refinement of the
   Git bugtracker concept, that it is the only "git bug" tool

It's a namespace grab.  There's nothing stopping someone from naming a
command "bug", either, but that doesn't make it a good idea.  (I'm not
saying that was the intent --- that's just the effect.)

Meanwhile it looks like a neat tool, and I'm very supportive of the
idea.  But you certainly still have not convinced me that the name is
a good idea, or that I shouldn't be bringing this up.

I'm not sure *what* you're trying to convince me of, actually.

I'm not saying the git-bug name is a good idea, or that it isn't. I
don't care about this particular case when it comes to naming.

I'm just pointing out in the more general case that if someone comes up
with a badly named git-xyz it doesn't scale to try to point this out to
them before git-xyz is widely deployed.

So we must either let it go (solution #1), or come up with some
API-level solution that makes it a non-issue (my #3).