Re: trash-cli : Looking for a reviewer

[Andrea Francia <andrea andreafrancia it>]

Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> Andrea Francia wrote:
>   
> > Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> >     
> > > Jean-François Martin wrote:
> > >  
> > >       
> > > > Le dimanche 05 octobre 2008 à 01:36 +0200, Patrice Dumas a écrit :
> > > >    
> > > >         
> > > > > On Sun, Oct 05, 2008 at 01:10:06AM +0200, Jean-François Martin wrote:
> > > > >      
> > > > >           
> > > > > > Patrice Dumas had already done a partial review but don't want to
> > > > > > accept
> > > > > > the package because he think that executables are too generic (trash,
> > > > > > empty-trash, list-trash, restore-trash).
> > > > > >         
> > > > > >             
> > > > > There is only trash that I find too generic...
> > > > >       
> > > > >           
> > > > If this command is really a problem can't we rename it "to-trash" for
> > > > example and add a file in doc, README.fedora that tell that for
> > > > packaging policy, we decide to change this command?
> > > >     
> > > >         
> > > If renaming, please consider renaming them all to trash-* from the
> > > current
> > > *-trash.
> > >   
> > >       
> > What are the advantages of doing this?
> >     
>
> Eh, thought it's obvious.  One can type "trash" then use tab completion to see
> what commands are available.  
So the commands names could became:
- trashcan-put
- trashcan-empty
- trashcan-list
- trashcan-restore

My English is not so good, is the 'trashcan-put' a good choice?

--
Andrea Francia
http://andreafrancia.blogspot.com/2008/07/colinux-linux-dentro-windows.html