[RFC] kbfiles: an extension to track binary files with less wasted bandwidth

[Angel Ezquerra Moreu]

On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Greg Ward <greg-hg at gerg.ca> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 5:25 AM, Angel Ezquerra
> <angel.ezquerra at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Adrian Buehlmann <adrian at cadifra.com> wrote:
>>> On 2011-07-26 21:42, Na'Tosha Bard wrote:
>>> Honestly, I don't really care that much about the name of the extension
>>> itself, as long as we don't get into troubles by using registered
>>> trademarks. So, if we can avoid the word "Kiln", I'm perfectly fine.
>>>
>>> Using the name "kbfiles" seems safe to me (regarding trademarks) and I
>>> have no qualms about it having significant contributions by "the Kiln
>>> folks", or its provenance in general. IIUC, the initial work was done by
>>> Greg anyway.
>>
>> I personally like Matt's name proposal. "largefiles" is very
>> descriptive of what the extension does. As others said, "kbfiles"
>> could be confusing for users, since "kb" refers to kilobyte or
>> kilobit...
>> Obviously the FogCreek guys should have a final say, since its their
>> extension after all...
>
> I couldn't let *this* pass by un-responded-to.
>
> IT'S NOT THEIR EXTENSION.
>
> I designed it, with help from my colleague Peter Neelin and (IIRC)
> feedback from the mercurial-devel list. I wrote it. I tested it. I
> reviewed patches from several contributors (thanks everyone!). I
> mentored a couple of summer students that Fog Creek recruited in
> summer 2010 to improve bfiles, and I massaged and merged in their
> patches. It's my bloody extension, and Fog Creek forked it. You
> wouldn't know that from reading the "hg log" of their repository, but
> it's the truth.

Greg,

I certainly did not want to upset you or diminish the credit that you
should get for your  work.

What I should have said is that only Matt and those that contributed
to the extension should be the ones with a last say on the extension
name. I did not have a clear idea of the "genealogy" of this
extension. I knew that there were several competing "big files"
extensions, but I did not know the relationship between them. Hence my
mistake.

Anyway, it seems that the FogCreek guys are trying to address your
(and other people's) concerns. I hope they manage to do so to your
entire satisfaction.

I am actually quite excited by this development since this is one of
those things that people point out as a weakness of mercurial (and
other DVCS), even though in my experience this is a non issue in most
regular usage scenarios.

Cheers,

Angel