From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp0 ([2001:41d0:2:c151::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id sWzXBZhBR2AocQAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 09 Mar 2021 09:36:24 +0000 Received: from aspmx2.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:c151::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp0 with LMTPS id YEcqAZhBR2CLcQAA1q6Kng (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 09 Mar 2021 09:36:24 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx2.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C6FC624968 for ; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 10:36:23 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost ([::1]:36552 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lJYms-0005mP-Rj for larch@yhetil.org; Tue, 09 Mar 2021 04:36:22 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:34546) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lJYmN-0005lz-9r for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Mar 2021 04:35:51 -0500 Received: from mailrelay.tugraz.at ([129.27.2.202]:61469) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lJYmG-0008Ow-DE for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Mar 2021 04:35:50 -0500 Received: from nijino.local (217-149-164-20.nat.highway.telekom.at [217.149.164.20]) by mailrelay.tugraz.at (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4Dvqnk2qMFz1LB20; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 10:35:38 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mailrelay.tugraz.at 4Dvqnk2qMFz1LB20 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tugraz.at; s=mailrelay; t=1615282539; bh=McNpSjL3/I6wEAyf/p6/rdX7o6boopR8vPV/il/dtEo=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=FohBscn5EmWl31Yd7Pd5Ixq96GkmOW1GtlRQLWv0NVViNu4Lwnw92Q9Pmmo9eMAhu IBFT9VeblQCi6wCHP5NDUvEePjzQJHIBuhjQwJGfCnyt/sCtl4ZKoj+IY6fxjpqSNS G3TvWaOQiY6kwzcRHIoj48uL1rHUuFdoqBeoIDh0= Message-ID: <0138da0bdbc9f71226135b58ffe9c813cd78065c.camel@student.tugraz.at> Subject: Re: Opposition to new single-letter package name "t" From: Leo Prikler To: Raghav Gururajan , jgart , Mark H Weaver , guix-devel@gnu.org Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2021 10:35:37 +0100 In-Reply-To: <9f7ad8ce-7275-0e06-1767-eef1fb0f11cb@raghavgururajan.name> References: <7ae1c8ee-30fc-6639-5539-621c65e7fc26@raghavgururajan.name> <87h7lkj3pt.fsf@netris.org> <2d477594f968f088d61e51a177e78bd2@dismail.de> <9f7ad8ce-7275-0e06-1767-eef1fb0f11cb@raghavgururajan.name> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.34.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TUG-Backscatter-control: bt4lQm5Tva3SBgCuw0EnZw X-Spam-Scanner: SpamAssassin 3.003001 X-Spam-Score-relay: -1.9 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.74 on 129.27.10.116 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=129.27.2.202; envelope-from=leo.prikler@student.tugraz.at; helo=mailrelay.tugraz.at X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: guix-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: LibreMiami , Nicolas Goaziou Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -4.00 Authentication-Results: aspmx2.migadu.com; none X-Migadu-Queue-Id: C6FC624968 X-Spam-Score: -4.00 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn1.migadu.com X-TUID: zd2h/tGkmPRe Am Dienstag, den 09.03.2021, 01:08 -0500 schrieb Raghav Gururajan: > > I like Mark's suggestion of "t-todo-list-manager" as well as > > Raghav's suggestion for "t-cli"; in that order. > > > > Either name sounds good to me, though. > > Cool! > > Since, we already mention "todo list manager" in description, I > think > "ti-cli" is better. I personally disagree. Let's assume we do have a collision and the other program also happens to be a CLI – then we're back to square one. Also, assuming it is a GUI instead of a CLI and the package can be named "t-gui", there will be the implication that the two are related when they need not be. On a related note, the description treads awfully close to advertising territory. I'd say "t-todo-list-manager", perhaps shortened to "t-todos". Alternatively, we might borrow some bits from the go-build-system convention and name it com-stevelosh-t. Regards, Leo