On 25/07/15 01:58PM, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > 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. Agreed, "query" sounds too open-ended. Since we are only targeting repository level data I think it would be confusing. > 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. Being that git-repo(1) isn't really intended as a common user facing command, I wonder if there really would be much confusion with repo(1) anyway. Personally, I perfer the shorter name and think it's fine as-is, but it's not a big deal either way. -Justin
