[PATCH] hgwatchman: new experimental extension

[Pierre-Yves David]

On 02/24/2016 07:33 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Siddharth Agarwal <sid at less-broken.com
> <mailto:sid at less-broken.com>> wrote:
>
>     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?
>
>     As far as the argument to convention goes, I strongly believe
>     conventions should be overridden by common sense if necessary.
>
>
> Why do we have to have "watchman" in the name at all? At its heart, the
> extension performs filesystem watching to make operations faster.
> Perhaps we could name it something like "fswatcher" or "fsmonitor"
> instead? Like inotify, watchman is arguably an implementation detail.

+1

-- 
Pierre-Yves David