[libvirt] [libvirt-jenkins-ci PATCH v2 2/6] guests: Introduce lcitool
phrdina at redhat.com
Thu Oct 19 14:00:13 UTC 2017
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 03:53:48PM +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-10-19 at 14:53 +0200, Pavel Hrdina wrote:
> > > So if your only argument against it is that you don't like it very
> > > much, my reply is that I do like it quite a bit and, well, I get to
> > > name the programs I write :)
> > Well, yes and no :) you can name the program but you also need to have
> > an ACK from community to accept that name. "licito" is just a cool name
> > that doesn't tell you anything from the first glance what it is. On the
> > other hand lcitool tells you that it's some kind of tool and that the
> > "lci" part specifies what kind of tool it is. It's not only that I
> > don't personally like it but it also looks like some randomly chosen
> > name even though there is some pattern behind it.
> > I vote for lcitool instead of licito.
> I don't feel like any of your arguments have much weight, since
> for most applications the name only has a very vague correlation
> with the functionality or intended purpose, if that: see mutt,
> dnf, evince, firefox, ansible and so, so many more examples.
And there could be a lot of examples to support my statement.
> That said, point taken about the need for the community to stand
> behind a name before it can be adopted.
> Most importantly, I feel like we could both spend our time in a
> more productive way than argue about this, so let's just stick
> with the existing name unless someone comes up with a different
> one that manages to make everyone happy.
Since lcitool was also your idea I didn't think that you would not like
to use it and prefer the new one. Anyway, thanks for sticking with
the current name.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the libvir-list