trash-cli : Looking for a reviewer

[Tim Niemueller]

Patrice Dumas schrieb:
> On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 11:32:27AM +0200, Tim Niemueller wrote:
>> And usability should be a very high priority goal. Even if you structure
>> it in beauty and perfection, if it does not solve the task efficiently
>> and easily (and to the user's liking) you have killed the feature.
> 
> Choosing a non-generic name will never 'kill a feature' otherwise we
> would have a very limited set of packages...

>From my very personal and lazy perspective I might use a "trash"
command, but "trashcan" is already on the edge.

> It is not distros who should dictate that. It is collective benefits.
> A point relevant to fedora is that distros are more likely to be aware 
> about these coordination failures because in a sense they are 
> coordinating collections of softwares, but upstreams should also be
> proactively working to avoid those coordination failures linked with
> misused names.

Agreed, though I wouldn't name it misused names but rather unfortunate
chosen names.

>> every project's own interest to choose a name which does not collide
>> with the name of another project. But besides that the project is free
>> to chose a name that fits the project best. 
> 
> No, there is also a responsibility in not misusing scarce words.

I can't see how that is misused for the trash tool. It's used, in a
sensible way.

>> Probably I'm slightly
>> missing the point because it's more about naming binaries, not whole
>> projects. But for the two examples of binary names (trash and player) I
>> feel that it wouldn't be a good idea to "just rename" it in Fedora.
>> Especially since there is no evident conflict, only maybe if you
>> actively look for a potential one on the web...
> 
> The fact that there is no conflict is irrelevant. It shows that other

It's all about a conflict. I see that we want to make sure that what we
do today makes sense tomorrow. But for these particular words I don't
see a problem, it's a valid reason to use them.

> project providing such functionalities (especially for player) were
> responsible enough not to use a generic word without caution.

The whole project is named Player, why shouldn't they be "eligible" to
have a binary named player!? Is it possibly because you are used to
player implicating "media player"?

	Tim

-- 
    Tim Niemueller <tim at niemueller.de>      www.niemueller.de
=================================================================
 Imagination is more important than knowledge. (Albert Einstein)