From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?utf-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= Subject: Naming, hacking, and policies Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2019 17:42:58 +0100 Message-ID: <87wokh638t.fsf_-_@gnu.org> References: <875zs3pg5b.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87wokhhj8n.fsf@nckx> <20190329151636.GA5681@jurong> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:37613) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h9uqG-0002IO-PG for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 12:58:58 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20190329151636.GA5681@jurong> (Andreas Enge's message of "Fri, 29 Mar 2019 16:16:36 +0100") List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Andreas Enge Cc: guix-devel Hello, Andreas Enge skribis: > On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 03:02:00PM +0100, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice wrote: >> I still think this change should be reverted > > I also think so. I=E2=80=99d also be in favor of reverting. I mean perhaps some of the renames may be less controversial than others, but it looks like we started on the wrong foot. I=E2=80=99d be in = favor of renaming at least so we can discuss things calmly, even if the outcome were to reinstate some of these changes. Thoughts? A couple of things come to my mind: =E2=80=A2 Fundamentally, this is a very minor issue. Each one of us shou= ld try hard not to spend more energy on it than on, say, testing the installer. :-) =E2=80=A2 The problem at hand is more of a policy and working-together is= sue than a UI issue or anything like that: What=E2=80=99s a =E2=80=9Ctrivia= l=E2=80=9D change? What can be considered controversial? What do we do when a controversial change goes in? How do we take into account previous discussions (after all, these packages were very likely reviewed here in the first place)? How do we adjust our documented practices to reflect this? Etc. So I think that Andreas=E2=80=99 proposal to clarify the naming guidelines = is the right attitude here. Let=E2=80=99s take this opportunity to share and refine our understanding of the issue, and to write it down. Regarding the =E2=80=9Ccontroversial=E2=80=9D bit, I think naming is almost= always controversial. :-) In other cases, by participating in the project, I think we all have a good idea of what=E2=80=99s going to generate heated discussions. Sometimes we get that wrong, and that=E2=80=99s fine. In this case, I=E2=80=99d suggest that the right approach is to revert the change so that discussion can take place without pressure. What about adding this to =E2=80=98HACKING=E2=80=99? As for taking previous discussions into account, it=E2=80=99s not always ea= sy to do because words can get lost. However, it=E2=80=99s generally a good thin= g to assume that changing something that has previously passed review may require discussion. Thoughts? > I am happy to make the wording clearer. But I am not sure whether replaci= ng > "project name" by "package name" makes a difference. What is a "package"? > But if you think it is better, why not. > > We could also add "short" in front of "projet"/"package name", and maybe > add that this usually corresponds to something like the base name of the > tarball, the git repository name or the domain where the project is hoste= d. Packages usually have a =E2=80=9Csystem name=E2=80=9D (that=E2=80=99s the t= erminology used on Savannah) and a =E2=80=9Cpretty name=E2=80=9D, like =E2=80=98guix=E2=80=99 = and =E2=80=98GNU=C2=A0Guix=E2=80=99. I believe the intent of those guidelines was to suggest keeping the system name, not the fancy name. Perhaps this is what should be clarified? Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99.