Ludovic Courtès (2014-11-05 23:12 +0300) wrote: > Alex Kost <alez...@gmail.com> skribis: > >> Ludovic Courtès (2014-11-05 00:37 +0300) wrote: >> >>> Alex Kost <alez...@gmail.com> skribis: >>> >>>> Also I forgot to mention “emacs/guix-messages.el” in “emacs.am” in >>>> commit 62f261d, so I did it in this patch (I hope it's not too evil :-)) >>> >>> Maybe “evil” is too strong a word ;-), but please keep the >>> emacs/guix-messages.el addition in a separate commit. >>> >>> Commits are cheap and easy, so let’s favor clarity. >> >> Yes, cheap, I know, but not very easy for me as I never sure what to >> write in a commit message and I have to ask guix-devel even about such >> trivial changes (the patch is attached :-)). > > Per ‘HACKING’ ;-), you don’t *have* to ask for trivial changes. It’s > nice of you to do it, but you don’t have to.
Yes, I know, I meant I'm not sure if my commit messages will be appropriate. [...] >> I've realized that "pretty-sha-path" is a bad name, because those 32 >> numbers and letters have nothing to do with SHA-sequences as I thought >> initially. So maybe it would be better to rename it into >> "pretty-hash-path" or "guix-pretty-path" (as it will be a part of Guix) >> or something else. Or is it OK to leave it as it is? > > Good point. Prefixing with ‘guix-’ makes sense, and it will be easier > for users to find it. > > While we’re at it, “path” in GNU normally means “search path”, not “file > name” (info "(standards) GNU Manuals"), so perhaps > ‘guix-pretty-file-names’ or something like that would be even better. > WDYT? I think ‘guix-pretty-file-names’ is too long for a package name as all symbols have to be prefixed with it. What about ‘guix-prettify’? -- Alex
