Re: [PATCH] emacs: Add 'pretty-sha-path'.

[Alex Kost]

Ludovic Courtès (2014-11-05 23:12 +0300) wrote:

> Alex Kost <address@hidden> skribis:
>
>> Ludovic Courtès (2014-11-05 00:37 +0300) wrote:
>>
>>> Alex Kost <address@hidden> skribis:
>>>
>>>> Also I forgot to mention “emacs/guix-messages.el” in “emacs.am” in
>>>> commit 62f261d, so I did it in this patch (I hope it's not too evil :-))
>>>
>>> Maybe “evil” is too strong a word ;-), but please keep the
>>> emacs/guix-messages.el addition in a separate commit.
>>>
>>> Commits are cheap and easy, so let’s favor clarity.
>>
>> Yes, cheap, I know, but not very easy for me as I never sure what to
>> write in a commit message and I have to ask guix-devel even about such
>> trivial changes (the patch is attached :-)).
>
> Per ‘HACKING’ ;-), you don’t *have* to ask for trivial changes.  It’s
> nice of you to do it, but you don’t have to.

Yes, I know, I meant I'm not sure if my commit messages will be
appropriate.

[...]

>> I've realized that "pretty-sha-path" is a bad name, because those 32
>> numbers and letters have nothing to do with SHA-sequences as I thought
>> initially.  So maybe it would be better to rename it into
>> "pretty-hash-path" or "guix-pretty-path" (as it will be a part of Guix)
>> or something else.  Or is it OK to leave it as it is?
>
> Good point.  Prefixing with ‘guix-’ makes sense, and it will be easier
> for users to find it.
>
> While we’re at it, “path” in GNU normally means “search path”, not “file
> name” (info "(standards) GNU Manuals"), so perhaps
> ‘guix-pretty-file-names’ or something like that would be even better.
> WDYT?

I think ‘guix-pretty-file-names’ is too long for a package name as all
symbols have to be prefixed with it.  What about ‘guix-prettify’?

-- 
Alex