Alright, new version appended. You can now be a badass.

On Thu, 18 Jan 2018, Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 08:17:01AM +0000, ng0 wrote:
>> Leo Famulari transcribed 2.1K bytes:
>> > On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 10:48:42PM +0000, ng0 wrote:
>> > > From 23242a1b6b96fed99f2dea3567b95ef35e2ebe5b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> > > From: ng0 <ng0@n0.is>
>> > > Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 22:42:55 +0000
>> > > Subject: [PATCH] gnu: Add github-com-umayr-badass.
>> > > 
>> > > * gnu/packages/games.scm (github-com-umayr-badass): New variable.
>> > 
>> > [...]
>> > 
>> > > +(define-public go-github-com-umayr-badass
>> > > +  (let ((commit "3c3cd669b4fc8f73a102e3702788f7b28dc47dbb")
>> > > +        (revision "0"))
>> > > +  (package
>> > > +    (name "go-github-com-umayr-badass")
>> > 
>> > The name in the commit message is missing the 'go-' prefix.
>> 
>> Okay, I will send a correction once you reply to the question
>> below.
>> 
>> > 
>> > > +    (synopsis "Hacking contribution graphs in git")
>> > > +    (description
>> > > +     "Badass generates false commits for a range of dates, essentially
>> > > +hacking the gamification of contribution graphs on platforms such as
>> > > +Github or Gitlab.")
>> > 
>> > Hahaha, LGTM overall.
>> > 
>> > Only question is, should we call the package "badass"? I think the
>> > long Go library names are only necessary for libraries, while we can
>> > use a shorter name for an executable program like this one.
>> 
>> Right, I did not consider this. Yes, although badass is quiet generic
>> and not a very unique namespace? I'm not sure.
>
> That's true. Do we want to use the name 'badass' for this package? I
> didn't find any 'badass' packages in Debian. I think it's okay, unless
> there is some other 'badass' software that is very prominent and that we
> might package someday. But I can't think of any.
>