[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Naming of teams on salsa.debian.org

Joerg Jaspert:
> On 14907 March 1977, Ximin Luo wrote:
>> The current team names are a bit of a mess [1], and forcing everyone
>> to use a suffix "-team" isn't helping because everyone is picking
>> inconsistent prefixes instead.
>> Glancing through the current list of public groups, I suggest the
>> following prefixes:
> Having read this and pondered for a while, i must say I really dislike
> it - and do prefer the -team thing more. (And do have ftp-team set :) )
> Yeah, the prefixes people chose arent standardised, but I, for one, do
> HATE pkg-*, it does look ugly. l10n-* isnt muc better, and the debian
> group being there already.
> And no, I do not have a perfect and nice suggestion on how to do it
> best. Though maybe just presenting a list of possibilities at the signup
> page (or on the wiki), to give people a common set of ideas on how they
> could go on to name them?!

I suggest the view that having something which half of people thinks is ugly but is consistent, is better than having something inconsistent half of which is pretty and half of which is ugly.

The problems with -team are:

- it doesn't mean anything, it's just a placeholder to avoid clashes with usernames

For example, what if FTP became popular again and we wanted to package FTP-related software, what would that team be called?

Or, what if Debian FTP decides to switch to a newer protocol, then you have the same issue of whether (xxp-team) should mean "the Debian XXP admins" or "Packaging of XXP-related software".

- it's a suffix, it doesn't sort naturally. With topic-based prefixes, sorting a list immediately puts packages with a common-prefix next to each other. Effectively, it acts as a fake "/".

I didn't think up the pkg- prefix originally, but I don't have any issues with it. I can understand why some people think it's ugly but I quite like it, it's short and succinct and it's hard to misunderstand it for anything else. The point of these names is more to communicate, and it does that well.

We'll never come up with a perfect naming system that satisfies everyone, so in the interests of consistency we should pick *something*. Rather than nothing - which also doesn't satisfy anyone, and is also inconsistent.


GPG: ed25519/56034877E1F87C35
GPG: rsa4096/1318EFAC5FBBDBCE

Reply to: