On Tue, Jul 15, 2025 at 12:34:42PM +0200, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > On Mon, Jul 14, 2025 at 08:52:27PM -0300, Lucas Seiki Oshiro wrote: > > - Renames the command to `repo` instead of `repo-info`. All the > > functionality > > of `repo-info` will now be under `repo info`. The functionality of `survey` > > will be moved to another subcommand of `git repo`. > > > this strikes me as a bad idea, given how established the `repo` tool is. The `repo` tool wouldn't be executed as `git repo` though, would it? So I'm not sure whether that really is relevant at all. On the other hand though I do see that it might be confusing when you interact with the `repo` tool on a daily basis. > without much thinking and reading prior conversations, i'd go with "query", > because it's a database-like metadata ... query. > the obvious followup idea would then be "meta", but that suggests that it > isn't only a read-only command, which i think it is supposed to remain? "Query" is way too generic from my point of view, as it doesn't say _what_ you query. "Meta" might be a bit better even though it still loses the information that you act on the repository level, which is a bit of a shame. We could of course adapt and call it git-repository(1) to avoid any confusion with git-repo(1) and repo(1). It's not like this is a tool that users would typically have to run daily outside of scripts, so I don't think it hurts much to have a longer command name. Patrick
