[PATCH] hgwatchman: new experimental extension

[Sean Farley]

Siddharth Agarwal <sid at less-broken.com> writes:

> On 2/23/16 14:13, Sean Farley wrote:
>> Siddharth Agarwal <sid at less-broken.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 2/23/16 13:57, Augie Fackler wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 03:48:31PM +0100, Martijn Pieters wrote:
>>>>> So, personally I think we should stick with hgwatchman to prevent
>>>>> getting confused over what part of the whole is being addressed.
>>>> I'm convinced the hg should stay. Anyone else have strong feelings either way?
>>> As the person who actually named the extension in the first place, I
>>> think the 'hg' should stay as well. Just the name 'watchman' is really
>>> ambiguous -- as Martin said, does it refer to the watchman service
>>> itself or to the integration layer?
>> How is it confusing? The only place this name will show up is:
>>
>> hg --config extensions.watchman= status
>>
>> ?
>
> It's confusing to the user that's trying to enable it for the first 
> time. Oh, they turned the watchman extension on. Shouldn't that be 
> enough? What's this extra tool you need to download and install? Why is 
> that called 'watchman'? What's the relationship between the 'watchman' 
> tool and the 'watchman' extension?
>
> The two extra characters in 'hgwatchman' answer all of these questions 
> with remarkable brevity.

I completely fail to see how that will help the user asking those
questions. Why wouldn't they ask if hgwatchman isn't enough? I don't
believe keeping a redundant two letters is needed nor will help these
already confused users.