On 01/21/11 23:15, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 03:47:03PM -0600, Donnie Berkholz wrote: >> Sweet, we actually got an invitation to bikeshed! Here's my contributions: >> >> gentoo-tree.git >> gentoo-portage-tree.git >> portage-tree.git >> (the name 'portage' derives from bsd ports, so it makes sense to keep >> that connection to make it recognizable to that audience) > Please note that I said _location_. > I'm not so happy about putting them in in the toplevel namespace.
I see. If the long-term goal is too have multiple packages trees, than maybe tree/main.git or tree/core.git would make sense and go well with "proj/", as that is not plural either: no "projs/", no "trees/". It could make tree/core.git tree/science.git tree/games.git tree/... some day. > You need to provide TWO names: > 1. The current tree that we will start with. > 2. The read-only graftable tree with full history (going back to the > start of Gentoo commits). Any of these suffixes for the other one would work for me: * "past" * "before" * "old" * "history" "historical" is fine, just a bit long, maybe without need to. > As much as I like the original "Portage tree", I do agree it's lead to > confusing of the source code of the package manager vs. the ebuild tree. Great to hear that you share this worry. Best, Sebastian
