Re: [Monotone-devel] renaming monotone executable (again)

[Justin Patrin]

On 2/26/06, Nathaniel Smith <address@hidden> wrote:
> So, this has been discussed before:
>   http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.monotone.devel/5481
>
> To spoil the ending, I'm going to suggest we switch to the name "mtn"
> for 0.26 and going forward :-).
>
> Why switch?
>   -- Real-world usage shows, many many users do not like the long
>      name, and alias it to something shorter.  Even people who don't
>      alias it, still habitually shorten it in docs, in emails, in IRC,
>      etc.  This is just crazy -- it's not like the present situation
>      is unbearable, but effort spent doing this, explaining to readers
>      what one meant, etc., is just loss.  There's no point to this.
>   -- Having a single, standard abbrev is very useful.  If, for
>      instance, we switch the command name to "mtn", we should also (I
>      suggest):
>        -- make the bookkeeping directory MTN (instead of MT)
>        -- make the ignore file .mtn-ignore (instead of .mt-ignore)
>        -- switch to using the ".mtn" extension for db files
>           consistently in documentation, etc.  (There is no
>           competition for this extension, according to filext.com.)
>        -- switch the namespace prefix on attrs we know about, except
>           that by some lucky coincidence this is already "mtn" ;-).
>      and it promotes consistency in discussion and such; no more
>      some-people-say-mt, some-say-mtn, ...
>   -- If we're ever going to do this, now is the time.
>
> Arguments against switching (attempting to summarize the points of the
> above thread):
>   1) A real word is a refreshing change from the usual cryptic Unix
>        command names...
>      Response: Perhaps, but experience shows that the long name
>        bothers lots of people enough to work around it.  OTOH, I don't
>        think even subversion, with its huge and increasingly less
>        sophisticated user base, has had any requests to provide a
>        command line executable named "subversion" instead of "svn".
>   2) A real word is more descriptive.
>      Response: Err, well, except "monotone" is completely
>        non-descriptive to most people already :-).  And 'man monotone'
>        or 'info monotone' or even 'monotone --help' already provide
>        plenty of clue what this tool is.
>
> To symlink or not to symlink:
>   It's been suggested that we should keep the current name, but
> provide a standard shorter symlink, or switch to a new name but keep
> the old name as a symlink.  I don't really see the advantages of this,
> outside of a knee-jerk attempt at a compromise solution.  We still
> have to pick one or the other to be the official name used in the
> documentation, etc.; making packages set up symlinks is a pain and has
> to be done for every packaging format; it doesn't work on windows
> anyway; and the experience from every other system, where this is all
> a complete non-issues, suggests that _no-one_ actually yearns to have
> a longer name available.
>
> What to switch to:
>   -- "mt" is the most natural choice, but not available.  Annoying,
>      since no-one uses the old mt command anymore, but there you go.
>   -- I'm kind of fond of "m" (take _that_, you upstart 2-letter
>      systems like hg!), but it got shouted down the last time I
>      suggested it :-).
>   -- "mmm" -- less boring than other suggestions, has appropriate
>      associations ;-), and is, in fact, a mono-tone... but just
>      perhaps a bit too cute.  Also, annoying to type.
>   -- "moto" -- dunno, also has nice associations.  That it's 4 letters
>      is a bit unfortunate... maybe "mto" would be a compromise,
>      keeping the short pronounciation...
>   -- "mtn" -- the boring, generic choice.  Of course, sometimes boring
>      is good.
>
> What next:
>   This is a classic bike-shed issue, but we do have a deadline :-).
> It's either going to happen or not for 0.26.  We pretty much need to
> decide whether it will happen or not, and what the final name will be.
> I lean towards "yes" and "mtn", so if no-one speaks up that will
> probably be what happens :-), but I'm not attached to that or
> anything.  The "moto" suggestion is clever too, and I had forgotten
> about it until Derek mentioned it on IRC a few days ago, and then
> reviewing the old thread.  So, what do people think?
>

It makes perfect sense to shorten the name, "monotone" is a hand-full.
I've personally been using "mt" as an alias since it's quick to type.
I'd vote for "yes" and "mtn" since "mt" is already taken. Extensions,
files, etc. should also be renamed to use mtn instead of mt.

Of course then all of us who use monotone will have to change our
scripts, web pages, etc....but hopefully everyone will see it as a
good change. :-)

--
Justin Patrin