For Foreman's new software collection, a name/prefix is needed to
replace our use of 'ruby193' (foreman-packaging/#249, https://youtu.be/gSEw6w2wem8 for background). The name is shipped as an
RPM, so needs to be unique (so 'foreman' would conflict with our own
main RPM).
The original proposal was 'fmrb', e.g. fmrb-rubygem-foobar, which stood
for "Foreman Ruby" since our collection is primarily Ruby-focused.
The current proposal is 'tfm', e.g. tfm-rubygem-foobar, which stands for
'The Foreman', but a few people are concerned that this hides the
provenance of the RPMs unless you check the build info (rpm -qi).
Keeping it short is beneficial for those of us who type it tens of times
a day, but we perhaps need to ensure it's clear.
> For Foreman's new software collection, a name/prefix is needed to
> replace our use of 'ruby193' (foreman-packaging/#249,
> https://youtu.be/gSEw6w2wem8 for background). The name is shipped as an
> RPM, so needs to be unique (so 'foreman' would conflict with our own
> main RPM).
>
> The original proposal was 'fmrb', e.g. fmrb-rubygem-foobar, which stood
> for "Foreman Ruby" since our collection is primarily Ruby-focused.
>
> The current proposal is 'tfm', e.g. tfm-rubygem-foobar, which stands for
> 'The Foreman', but a few people are concerned that this hides the
> provenance of the RPMs unless you check the build info (rpm -qi).
>
> Keeping it short is beneficial for those of us who type it tens of times
> a day, but we perhaps need to ensure it's clear.
>
> Does anybody have a better proposal than 'tfm'?
>
>
>
> > For Foreman's new software collection, a name/prefix is needed to
> > replace our use of 'ruby193' (foreman-packaging/#249,
> > https://youtu.be/gSEw6w2wem8 for background). The name is shipped as an
> > RPM, so needs to be unique (so 'foreman' would conflict with our own
> > main RPM).
> >
> > The original proposal was 'fmrb', e.g. fmrb-rubygem-foobar, which stood
> > for "Foreman Ruby" since our collection is primarily Ruby-focused.
> >
> > The current proposal is 'tfm', e.g. tfm-rubygem-foobar, which stands for
> > 'The Foreman', but a few people are concerned that this hides the
> > provenance of the RPMs unless you check the build info (rpm -qi).
> >
> > Keeping it short is beneficial for those of us who type it tens of times
> > a day, but we perhaps need to ensure it's clear.
> >
> > Does anybody have a better proposal than 'tfm'?
>
> +1 for tfm
>
+1 too, I wonder if there is any possible reason to add a r as a prefix…
Ohad
> – Ivan
>
> >
> > –
> > Dominic Cleal
> > Red Hat Engineering
> >
> > –
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups
> > "foreman-dev" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an
> > email to foreman-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> >
>
> –
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"foreman-dev" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to foreman-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
···
On Apr 24, 2015 13:09, "Ivan Necas" wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
The "tfm" seems fine as most of us will auto-complete it in our heads over
time. However, it is worth noting that all the other SCLs don't shy away
from being verbose and specific with their naming and version for that
matter. For example: ruby193, python26, passenger40, postgresql92. So
personally, I would prefer with "theforeman" or "foreman_ruby" as per the
original proposal as I am a fan of being specific. I think it is worth
asking if a user googles "tfm" will they find what we would want them to
find?
Good point, but that's easy to fix as I had to (mostly) revert it.
···
On 27/04/15 14:51, Eric D Helms wrote:
> This ship may have already sailed, but if we do go with the short
> moniker, it might be nice if the SCL name and the new release tag
> (https://github.com/theforeman/foreman-packaging/pull/627) were the same.
···
On 24/04/15 12:02, Ohad Levy wrote:
>> > The current proposal is 'tfm', e.g. tfm-rubygem-foobar, which stands for
>> > 'The Foreman', but a few people are concerned that this hides the
>> > provenance of the RPMs unless you check the build info (rpm -qi).
>> >
>> > Keeping it short is beneficial for those of us who type it tens of times
>> > a day, but we perhaps need to ensure it's clear.
>> >
>> > Does anybody have a better proposal than 'tfm'?
>>
>> +1 for tfm
>
> +1 too, I wonder if there is any possible reason to add a r as a prefix.. :)
>
> >> > The current proposal is 'tfm', e.g. tfm-rubygem-foobar, which stands
for
> >> > 'The Foreman', but a few people are concerned that this hides the
> >> > provenance of the RPMs unless you check the build info (rpm -qi).
> >> >
> >> > Keeping it short is beneficial for those of us who type it tens of
times
> >> > a day, but we perhaps need to ensure it's clear.
> >> >
> >> > Does anybody have a better proposal than 'tfm'?
> >>
> >> +1 for tfm
> >
> > +1 too, I wonder if there is any possible reason to add a r as a
prefix…
>
> Sorry, I don't understand what you mean?
I was pondering if we could call it rtfm
>
> –
> Dominic Cleal
> Red Hat Engineering
>
> –
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"foreman-dev" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to foreman-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
···
On Apr 24, 2015 14:17, "Dominic Cleal" wrote:
> On 24/04/15 12:02, Ohad Levy wrote:
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> >
> > >> > The current proposal is 'tfm', e.g. tfm-rubygem-foobar, which stands
> for
> > >> > 'The Foreman', but a few people are concerned that this hides the
> > >> > provenance of the RPMs unless you check the build info (rpm -qi).
> > >> >
> > >> > Keeping it short is beneficial for those of us who type it tens of
> times
> > >> > a day, but we perhaps need to ensure it's clear.
> > >> >
> > >> > Does anybody have a better proposal than 'tfm'?
> > >>
> > >> +1 for tfm
> > >
> > > +1 too, I wonder if there is any possible reason to add a r as a
> prefix…
> >
> > Sorry, I don't understand what you mean?
> I was pondering if we could call it rtfm
You mean you were pundering Well played, sir
– Ivan
···
----- Original Message -----
> On Apr 24, 2015 14:17, "Dominic Cleal" wrote:
> > On 24/04/15 12:02, Ohad Levy wrote:
