On Wed, 27 May 2020 at 12:35, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ugh, yeah, please don't do that. Renaming them just to make it "look more > modern" helps nobody, really. Especially if the suggestion is people should > be using the shared-launcher binary anyway. > > The way things like 'git' work is that 'git thunk' just looks in a > designated directory for an executable called git-thunk, and invokes > it if it's found. If you want to invent your own git subcommand, you > can. I guess 'git help' wouldn't know to list it, but you can still > get the metacommand to execute it. That only works if you use a > standard naming, though. If the meta-executable has to hard-code the > names of all the individual executables that it calls, then you can't > really make that work. > You could make the legacy names symlinks to the new systematic names.
