Re: [GitLab] IMPORTANT: Mass migration plan

[Milan Crha <mcrha redhat com>]

On Wed, 2018-03-21 at 07:56 +0100, Arnaud Bonatti wrote:
> the future name of ‘dconf-editor’ needs discussions (‘Registry’ and
> ‘Tinkerings’ are the best I came with

        Hi,
may I ask why? What is the reasoning about changing the name of the
dconf-editor? You want to rename a reversi game to reflect what it is
(I had no idea what 'iagno' is until now), then you want to do
something opposite for the dconf-editor? That looks odd. With
'Registry', well, it's too generic and I'd say "Hello Windows" when I
see it anywhere on Linux. Does dconf-editor talk only to DConf, or it's
available for any GSettings backend? If the later, then the most
accurate (but maybe not the nicest) name would be "gsettings-editor".
Otherwise I'd really keep the connection to DConf as obvious as it is
now.

The GConf editor currently identifies itself as "Configuration Editor"
and the dconf-editor as "dconf Editor" in the Applications menu, both
with the same icon. I do have both of them installed here.

Your module rename may mean also renaming in distributions, thus it
should not be done in a rush and "just because we can". At least from
my point of view. You also lose some kind of mind share with the
rename, because existing users know what it is called now, but will be
lost when you rename the module (and the packages will be renamed, and
the .desktop files will be renamed, and the application will be
identified differently, and so on). I know that many application names
in GNOME (and elsewhere) do not reflect what they actually do. Either
one lives with what the decision makers decided at the beginning, or...

A good example is Epiphany. I asked a user to test something with it
recently. He installed it, but he could not find it in the
Applications. It's not "Epiphany" there, it's just "Web". I know it,
but for him it was a surprise and a source of confusion.

Just my thoughts.
        Bye,
        Milan