-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 52
Rename to annotate_rb #187
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
👍 |
Hi @sethherr thanks for submitting this PR. It does seem like with more adoption of this gem, that people are running into issues with the name I think you caught on to it, but I wanted to have the gem name be Would you mind sharing where you're running into issues due to naming? It would help inform me on making a decision here. |
For instance, when I wrote the PR to annotate_models to link to this gem, I initially used the incorrect form. Without going and looking at the code (or re-reading my comment), I can’t tell you which one the correct form is for what. If I was adding this to a new project, I wouldn’t remember which commands go which way off the top of my head. I have too many things on my mind to be able to remember which is which. Or I’m too dumb and lazy. Or this is additional, unnecessary cognitive load. Take your pick! |
Forcing everyone to rename the gem seems very inconvenient! I closed this and submitted a PR for the switch in the other direction (renaming everything ... but that PR made it clear that renaming in that direction would change every file (because the main directory needs to be renamed) and keeping it backward compatible would mean maintaining two code paths (which would be a bummer). Changing the name in this direction seems like a better solution, so I'm reopening this PR. |
@drwl why do you want this gem to be named Not following naming conventions generates friction for everyone using the gem. Sometimes it's worth adding friction, but I don't understand what is gained in this instance. If you explained the advantages of having this gem named in a surprising way, maybe it would help me get over my frustration. |
@sethherr I've been putting off addressing this because this is new territory for me. I didn't expect the naming of a gem to get such a response. I've taken long breaks between maintaining this, mostly due to work and lack of motivation, so I will need some time to re-familiarize myself with all the issues related to naming. |
@drwl would you like to meet up or get on a call? I feel like chatting could help resolve this. |
ac1bfa4
to
2efeca0
Compare
I don't understand why you have named this inconsistently - it's surprising and confusing.
Some things use
annotaterb
- like the gem name and the.annotaterb.yml
file - but everything else usesannotate_rb
This PR switches everything to be
annotate_rb
- making it simpler and using the Ruby naming convention.I realize this would be a big change, if you accept it! But it seems like a worthwhile adjustment to make.
It makes it so
annotaterb.yml
files are still found, for backward compatibility. But, everyone using the gem will have to update the name.An alternative option that would still achieve consistency would be renaming everything to
annotaterb
(i.e.Annotaterb
). I explored that in #196 but it creates too many changes and seems like a worse solution.Regardless - thanks for creating this gem!