trash-cli : Looking for a reviewer

[Patrice Dumas]

On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 12:10:49PM +0200, Tim Niemueller wrote:
> 
> > 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.

Once again when I say 'misused' I am not pointing a finger on upstreams.
The misuse is relevant from a collective point of view.

> >> 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.

trash is a generic name, and I think that it should not be chosen by a
specific project, but be part of a standard that defines command line
args. If it is used by a specific project now, it will become very hard to
revert to genericity.

> 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"?

Because there should be agreement on what the command 'player' provides,
on the command line arguments before it is used.

--
Pat