this is a debate we have with Stef time to time: my side: just descriptive names that explain them selves what they do. Stefâs side: cool fantasy names, that have some âpunchâ. After more than 2 years arguing... both arguments have pros and cons :) for example we can have several browsers then we need to identify them and just call them âclass browserâ is not enough. But of course, a newbie will have a hard time trying to figure out what âNautilusâ means⦠(btw⦠the world many says "system browserâ and not âNautilusâ but then we have âmonticello browserâ and not âSCM package browserâ⦠and later we will have âIcebergâ and not âSCM project browserâ⦠so is not consistent either... also if everything is a browser then nothing is, etc., etc., etc. :) ⦠now, what I would like is a way to find tools both from his fantasy name and function (for example: âEpicea" and "change loggerâ)⦠and a way to list those tools/components in both ways⦠Yeah, Iâm aware this approach âsolvesâ a problem by adopting both solutions instead proposing a synthesis, but well⦠this is the better I was able to elaborate :) Any ideas are welcome, both on whatâs better and how to implement it. Esteban
On 27 Dec 2016, at 11:03, Norbert Hartl <norbert@hartl.name> wrote:
Am 27.12.2016 um 10:49 schrieb Martin Dias <tinchodias@gmail.com>:
I do not care a lot. BTW, what about other tools in the same manu such as Komitter and Versionner?
It has a cool name that describes what it does. Putting Epicea in front of it does not add information only confusion. Versionner and Kommiter carry some meaning in their name. But have a better descriptive/more generic name would be good.
Norbert