From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 439371F55B for ; Thu, 28 May 2020 19:29:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2406355AbgE1T3Z (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 May 2020 15:29:25 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:63158 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2406289AbgE1T3Y (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 May 2020 15:29:24 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFC7058DBD; Thu, 28 May 2020 15:29:21 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=2957OHn6DcMHWCl2mG0wTs7k1qA=; b=gCxobd h3ccCzEqtIm8NQ5rcIVKTgexR9TPuJMUMqM9b9cZx5+1+OnS3zEZDPRPlcoN+eiG 1vROweplGuB0njLhU5x6MKMrOsNQyWNw+DnvytaBJJe/K4uEvW8qT77y0i1HBZKU j/49T04TLf5TbOaTBIhzDdB3QYgcJmA+KLEKg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=tamLuoJcOOuNReToHL9ILNKRgmylzoGn JNJxSNqpwR3x1PWMMAUBm74OlkMFq+1vYkzPAZdHGNdKLqsHm6bIardsXKGAW257 lJxTKZKB+UwKZU/xAKUG5rs9X5WaNEoVDClm5CeC0SIEZj/TtjNpuuHzy5WKLYp7 UyxK7kPIyoU= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B62BD58DBC; Thu, 28 May 2020 15:29:21 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [35.196.173.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0743F58DBA; Thu, 28 May 2020 15:29:21 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Kenneth Lorber Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 3/6] doc: Add namespace collision guidelines file References: <1589681624-36969-1-git-send-email-keni@hers.com> <20200525232727.21096-1-keni@his.com> <20200525232727.21096-4-keni@his.com> Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 12:29:20 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Thu, 28 May 2020 11:49:27 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 87A8F11E-A119-11EA-980F-C28CBED8090B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Junio C Hamano writes: > Kenneth Lorber writes: > >> +Git uses identifiers in a number of different namespaces: >> + >> +* environment variables >> +* files in $GIT_DIR >> +* files in the working trees >> +* config sections >> +* hooks >> +* attributes > > The names of the subcommands "git" can spawn is a shared resource. > You can install "git-imerge" program in one of the directories on > your $PATH and say "git imerge" to invoke the program. > > Two third-party developers may have to coordinate to avoid giving > the same name to their totally-unrelated tools, if they hope that > both of their tools to be useful in the larger Git ecosystem. Also names of worktrees that are attached to a single repository. If a third-party tool wants to make it "easy" for its users by automatically taking a name to do its job (instead of forcing the users to come up with a name and giving it to the tool), the name must be chosen in such a way that it does not collide names in use and names the user (or other third-party tools) will pick in the future. I (or others) may come up with other things that must be named and name collisions must be avoided. Even though I already said that I didn't think the "suggestions to avoid name collisions" given by the RFC PATCH are well done, I do think it is worth being aware of the problem space, and enumerating what kind of names are shared and limited resource is the first step to become so. Thanks.