alt Hacker NewsI would categorize all those as emotional reasons not to change, not logical reasons.
"It's hard!" So? "It's complicated" So? "Some of it other people control." This will always be the case, you can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good enough.
If the status quo means a worse project, then you're not changing because you don't WANT to, not because it's a good idea. And that's an emotional, not logical ,decision.
Replies
>"It's hard!" So? "It's complicated" So?
So there's no point in wasting time on this, if perceived problems are low or nonexistent. Current maintainers probably look at it from a technical pov "it's just a name, who cares"
Different people have different perspectives.
My point is that from a developers PoV, renaming is not an evident net-gain at all-- might be seen as pointless branding busywork that leeches ressources from "actual" problems.
That is not "being emotional", it's just different priorities.
I think it's the exact opposite of what you're saying. The maintainers sound like they're only considering the technical cost (and judging it not worth it) instead of factoring in the political consequences of keeping the same naming. I actually really respect those who value the technical over the political, but in a large-scale, public-facing project, some politics must be played.
It seems to me like you're viewing the playing of politics as a no-brainer, which is a very different mindset from a Linux contributor. I don't think people get into kernel maintenance to play politics.
Technical procedural issues don't become "emotional reasons" because you hand-wave them away. This sounds like volunteering other peoples time.
> "It's hard!" So? "It's complicated" So?
So it will take valuable developer time that might be better utilized to work on something else. And even if they do rename it, there isn't any guarantee that the other vendors would then agree to collaborate.
i am not sure why you would say that they are "emotional reasons".
comparing the cost (difficulty, complications, etc.) against the benefit of doing something before doing it seems quite logical.
>> The technical people managing the repos might just be opposed to name changing in general (seeing how a boatload of links, references, documentation would require updating, some of which you don't even control), and meanwhile those people might feel the "misbranding" drawbacks much less (if at all).
> I would categorize all those as emotional reasons not to change, not logical reasons.
Ignoring for a moment the annoying software engineer tropes of "emotional=bad, logical=good" labeling and its unawareness of the fact that logic and emotions are hopelessly enmeshed; deciding what work to prioritize how you spend your limited time does not seem particularly "emotional."