On 06/13/2014 03:01 PM, Mathew R Odden wrote: > I am surprised this became a concern so quickly, but I do understand the > strangeness of installing a 'bash8' binary on command line. I'm fine > with renaming to 'bashate' or 'bash_tidy', but renames can take some > time to work through all the references. > > Apparently Sean and I both thought of the 'bashate' name independently > (from gpb => jeepyb) but I wasn't to keen on the idea since it isn't > very descriptive. 'bash-tidy' makes more sense but we can't use dashes > in python package names :( > > My vote would be for 'bashate' still, since I think that would be the > easiest to transition to from the current name.
-tidy programs typically rewrite your code (at least html-tidy and
perl-tidy do), so I think that's definitely not a name we want, because
we aren't doing that (or ever plan to do that).
bashate ftw.
Because if you can't have an inside joke buried within your naming of an
open source project, what's the point. :)
-Sean
--
Sean Dague
http://dague.net
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
