Re: git-bug: Distributed bug tracker embedded in git

[Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>]

Hi,

Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 18 2018, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>> Michael Muré wrote:

>>> I released today git-bug, a distributed bug tracker
[...]
>> I am a bit unhappy about the namespace grab.  Not for trademark
>> reasons: the Git trademark rules are pretty clear about this kind of
>> usage being okay.  Instead, the unhappiness comes because a future Git
>> command like "git bug" to produce a bug report with appropriate
>> diagnostics for a bug in Git seems like a likely and useful thing to
>> get added to Git some day.  And now the name's taken.
>>
>> Is it too late to ask if it's possible to come up with a less generic
>> name?
>
> Wouldn't we call such a thing "git-reportbug", or "git gitbug", with
> reference to Debian reportbug or perl's perlbug?

I hope you're kidding about "git gitbug".

[...]
> 1) Accept the status quo where people do create third party tools, much
>    of which are way too obscure to matter (e.g. I'm sure someone's
>    created a tool/alias called range-diff before, but we didn't
>    care).
>
>    If those tools become popular enough in the wild they get own that
>    namespace, e.g. we're not going to ship a "git-annex" or "git-lfs"
>    ourselves implementing some unrelated features

That's fair.  Let me spell out my thinking a little more.

This framework would lead me to rephrase my question to Michael a
different way.  Instead of saying that I'm not happy with the
namespace grab, I should say something more severe:

  Don't be surprised if Git itself makes a "git bug" command in the
  future, and be prepared to rename.

Is that preferable, in your opinion?

I still think it's a reasonable thing for me to ask about, if only to
save Michael some trouble later.

Thanks,
Jonathan