You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by Stefan Fuhrmann <st...@wandisco.com> on 2015/02/08 18:46:51 UTC
Renaming svn-bench to svnbench
Hi there,
When that tool got "promoted" to live under ./subversion,
we already had a short discussion on whether to keep the
hyphen in its name. I've been against the rename only
because of it being already released in 1.8 with the "-" in it.
Relevant dev@ thread:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/subversion-dev/201408.mbox/%3C53F34EFB.5070301@collab.net%3E
I've changed my mind. The name simply looks odd and I
feel we should get rid of this idiosyncrasy before it takes
too much hold. IMO, sparing future confusion on the user
side on how to spell tool names outweighs the inconvenience
of teaching a few current users. So, let's rename it in 1.9.
Pro:
+ consistent naming of tools; svn-bench would be the sole exception
Con:
- some people have seen the tool and may have used it
with its current name
Neutral:
* renames have happened in the past (e.g. mucc -> svnmucc)
* many distributions didn't even ship a compiled version of svn-bench
-- Stefan^2
Re: Renaming svn-bench to svnbench
Posted by Stefan Fuhrmann <st...@wandisco.com>.
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 10:38 PM, Ivan Zhakov <iv...@visualsvn.com> wrote:
> On 11 February 2015 at 00:28, Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>
> wrote:
> > Ivan Zhakov wrote on Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 14:48:04 +0300:
> >> On 10 February 2015 at 14:07, Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>
> wrote:
> >> > Stefan Fuhrmann wrote on Sun, Feb 08, 2015 at 18:46:51 +0100:
> >> >> Con:
> >> >> - some people have seen the tool and may have used it
> >> >> with its current name
> >> >>
> >> >> Neutral:
> >> >> * renames have happened in the past (e.g. mucc -> svnmucc)
> >> >
> >> > For svnmucc, we add a symlink from the old location in Makefile.in:
> >> >
> >> > if test "$(DESTDIR)$(bindir)" != "$(DESTDIR)$(toolsdir)"; then \
> >> > ln -sf $(bindir)/svnmucc$(EXEEXT)
> $(DESTDIR)$(toolsdir)/svnmucc$(EXEEXT); \
> >> > fi
> >> >
> >> > So you could do something similar for this rename.
> >> I think that distro packagers who made unofficially released tool part
> >> of they package could do this, but we should not add a symlink in
> >> Subversion core.
> >
> > In 1.8, 'make install-tools' installs svn-bench. In 1.9, 'make install'
> > will install svnbench. If 1.9 'make install-tools' doesn't create
> > svn-bench as a symlink to svnbench, then we'll have broken compatibility
> > for users of that makefile target. Therefore 'make install-tools'
> > should create the symlink. The symlink won't be part of the core 'make
> > install'. Makes sense?
> >
> I don't see problems to have 'make install-tools' to create symlink
> for svn-bench to maintain compatibility with 1.8.
>
> And of course svn-bench should be renamed to svnbench.
>
Looks like we have a consensus. I'll do the changes Thursday morning.
Thanks everyone how participated!
-- Stefan^2.
Re: Renaming svn-bench to svnbench
Posted by Ivan Zhakov <iv...@visualsvn.com>.
On 11 February 2015 at 00:28, Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
> Ivan Zhakov wrote on Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 14:48:04 +0300:
>> On 10 February 2015 at 14:07, Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
>> > Stefan Fuhrmann wrote on Sun, Feb 08, 2015 at 18:46:51 +0100:
>> >> Con:
>> >> - some people have seen the tool and may have used it
>> >> with its current name
>> >>
>> >> Neutral:
>> >> * renames have happened in the past (e.g. mucc -> svnmucc)
>> >
>> > For svnmucc, we add a symlink from the old location in Makefile.in:
>> >
>> > if test "$(DESTDIR)$(bindir)" != "$(DESTDIR)$(toolsdir)"; then \
>> > ln -sf $(bindir)/svnmucc$(EXEEXT) $(DESTDIR)$(toolsdir)/svnmucc$(EXEEXT); \
>> > fi
>> >
>> > So you could do something similar for this rename.
>> I think that distro packagers who made unofficially released tool part
>> of they package could do this, but we should not add a symlink in
>> Subversion core.
>
> In 1.8, 'make install-tools' installs svn-bench. In 1.9, 'make install'
> will install svnbench. If 1.9 'make install-tools' doesn't create
> svn-bench as a symlink to svnbench, then we'll have broken compatibility
> for users of that makefile target. Therefore 'make install-tools'
> should create the symlink. The symlink won't be part of the core 'make
> install'. Makes sense?
>
I don't see problems to have 'make install-tools' to create symlink
for svn-bench to maintain compatibility with 1.8.
And of course svn-bench should be renamed to svnbench.
--
Ivan Zhakov
Re: Renaming svn-bench to svnbench
Posted by Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>.
Ivan Zhakov wrote on Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 14:48:04 +0300:
> On 10 February 2015 at 14:07, Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
> > Stefan Fuhrmann wrote on Sun, Feb 08, 2015 at 18:46:51 +0100:
> >> Con:
> >> - some people have seen the tool and may have used it
> >> with its current name
> >>
> >> Neutral:
> >> * renames have happened in the past (e.g. mucc -> svnmucc)
> >
> > For svnmucc, we add a symlink from the old location in Makefile.in:
> >
> > if test "$(DESTDIR)$(bindir)" != "$(DESTDIR)$(toolsdir)"; then \
> > ln -sf $(bindir)/svnmucc$(EXEEXT) $(DESTDIR)$(toolsdir)/svnmucc$(EXEEXT); \
> > fi
> >
> > So you could do something similar for this rename.
> I think that distro packagers who made unofficially released tool part
> of they package could do this, but we should not add a symlink in
> Subversion core.
In 1.8, 'make install-tools' installs svn-bench. In 1.9, 'make install'
will install svnbench. If 1.9 'make install-tools' doesn't create
svn-bench as a symlink to svnbench, then we'll have broken compatibility
for users of that makefile target. Therefore 'make install-tools'
should create the symlink. The symlink won't be part of the core 'make
install'. Makes sense?
That's exactly what we do for svnmucc — the Makefile.in code I quoted is
run by the 'install-tools' target, which used to install svnmucc into
$(toolsdir)/svnmucc.
Daniel
Re: Renaming svn-bench to svnbench
Posted by Ivan Zhakov <iv...@visualsvn.com>.
On 10 February 2015 at 14:07, Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
> Stefan Fuhrmann wrote on Sun, Feb 08, 2015 at 18:46:51 +0100:
>> Con:
>> - some people have seen the tool and may have used it
>> with its current name
>>
>> Neutral:
>> * renames have happened in the past (e.g. mucc -> svnmucc)
>
> For svnmucc, we add a symlink from the old location in Makefile.in:
>
> if test "$(DESTDIR)$(bindir)" != "$(DESTDIR)$(toolsdir)"; then \
> ln -sf $(bindir)/svnmucc$(EXEEXT) $(DESTDIR)$(toolsdir)/svnmucc$(EXEEXT); \
> fi
>
> So you could do something similar for this rename.
I think that distro packagers who made unofficially released tool part
of they package could do this, but we should not add a symlink in
Subversion core.
--
Ivan Zhakov
Re: Renaming svn-bench to svnbench
Posted by Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>.
Stefan Fuhrmann wrote on Sun, Feb 08, 2015 at 18:46:51 +0100:
> Con:
> - some people have seen the tool and may have used it
> with its current name
>
> Neutral:
> * renames have happened in the past (e.g. mucc -> svnmucc)
For svnmucc, we add a symlink from the old location in Makefile.in:
if test "$(DESTDIR)$(bindir)" != "$(DESTDIR)$(toolsdir)"; then \
ln -sf $(bindir)/svnmucc$(EXEEXT) $(DESTDIR)$(toolsdir)/svnmucc$(EXEEXT); \
fi
So you could do something similar for this rename.
Re: Renaming svn-bench to svnbench
Posted by Julian Foad <ju...@btopenworld.com>.
Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
> When that tool got "promoted" to live under ./subversion,
> we already had a short discussion on whether to keep the
> hyphen in its name. I've been against the rename only
> because of it being already released in 1.8 with the "-" in it.
> Relevant dev@ thread: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/subversion-dev/201408.mbox/%3C53F34EFB.5070301@collab.net%3E
>
> I've changed my mind. The name simply looks odd and I
> feel we should get rid of this idiosyncrasy before it takes
> too much hold. IMO, sparing future confusion on the user
> side on how to spell tool names outweighs the inconvenience
> of teaching a few current users. So, let's rename it in 1.9.
>
> Pro:
> + consistent naming of tools; svn-bench would be the sole exception
>
> Con:
> - some people have seen the tool and may have used it
> with its current name
>
> Neutral:
> * renames have happened in the past (e.g. mucc -> svnmucc)
> * many distributions didn't even ship a compiled version of svn-bench
+1. I agree with your pros and cons and that the pros outweigh the cons.
- Julian