this is a debate we have with Stef time to time: my side: just descriptive names that explain them selves what they do. Stef’s side: cool fantasy names, that have some “punch”.
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 “class browser” is not enough. But of course, a newbie will have a hard time trying to figure out what “Nautilus” means… (btw… the world many says "system browser” and not “Nautilus” but then we have “monticello browser” and not “SCM package browser”… and later we will have “Iceberg” and not “SCM project browser”… 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: “Epicea" and "change logger”)… and a way to list those tools/components in both ways… Yeah, I’m aware this approach “solves” 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 what’s better and how to implement it. Esteban > On 27 Dec 2016, at 11:03, Norbert Hartl <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Am 27.12.2016 um 10:49 schrieb Martin Dias <[email protected]>: >> >> 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 >
