On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 5:01 AM, Sean Dague <s...@dague.net> wrote: > On 06/13/2014 03:01 PM, Mathew R Odden wrote: > > I am surprised this became a concern so quickly, but I do understand the > > strangeness of installing a 'bash8' binary on command line. I'm fine > > with renaming to 'bashate' or 'bash_tidy', but renames can take some > > time to work through all the references. > > > > Apparently Sean and I both thought of the 'bashate' name independently > > (from gpb => jeepyb) but I wasn't to keen on the idea since it isn't > > very descriptive. 'bash-tidy' makes more sense but we can't use dashes > > in python package names :( > > > > My vote would be for 'bashate' still, since I think that would be the > > easiest to transition to from the current name. > > -tidy programs typically rewrite your code (at least html-tidy and > perl-tidy do), so I think that's definitely not a name we want, because > we aren't doing that (or ever plan to do that). > > bashate ftw. >
I completely did not care at all until you suggested this! +1 for bashate!!! > > Because if you can't have an inside joke buried within your naming of an > open source project, what's the point. :) > > -Sean > > -- > Sean Dague > http://dague.net > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > >
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
