On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 6:59 AM, Michael J Gruber <g...@grubix.eu> wrote: > Duy Nguyen venit, vidit, dixit 25.03.2017 13:07: >> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 12:55 AM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote: >>> Michael J Gruber <g...@drmicha.warpmail.net> writes: >>> >>>> Are we at a point where we can still rename the new feature at least? If >>>> yes, and keeping everything else is mandatory, than "workspace" or >>>> "working space" may be a serious contender for naming the new thing. >>> >>> I do not have a good answer to the first question, but workspace >>> does sound like a good name for what this feature is trying to >>> achieve. >>> >> >> Now is not too late to rename the command from worktree to workspace >> (and keep "worktree" as an alias that will be eventually deleted). >> Should we do it? I would keep file names, function names... unchanged >> though, not worth the amount of new conflicts. > > I guess I would go for a full change. Our technical documentation often > merely consists of the source code, so we should reduce potential > confusion there, too. > > Michael
Yes, changing the command name but not all the code would cause more confusion in the long run. However, personally I never confused "worktree" and "working trees" myself. I fee like they are related concepts anyways, in that a fresh clone has one worktree which its its working tree. Renaming it all to workspace doesn't bother me either. Thanks, Jake
