Page MenuHomePhabricator

Choose the most straightforward possible name for a package management application
Closed, ResolvedPublic

Description

This application would pretty much work like npm, yum, apt-get, brew, composer, etc., except that we're going to build the whole thing ourselves from scratch.

Great ideas:

  • yuck
  • phew
  • comphoser
  • phackage

Event Timeline

epriestley raised the priority of this task from to Low.
epriestley updated the task description. (Show Details)
epriestley added a subscriber: avivey.
epriestley added a subscriber: epriestley.

pls help

  • aphm (Another Phackage Manager)
  • ppp (Phabricator Package Provider)
  • Ekstand (Pivoting the regular naming convention?)

Amazing ideas follow

  • phax - some sort of phabricator box plus its like fax which is vaguely applicable
  • phundle - you know, a fun bundle
  • pharcel - just a letter away from parcel
  • phode - phabricator + code mashed up yields this gross sounding word

I like that "phundle" is uncomfortably close to "fondle", too. Win-win!

  • ppm is already taken :-(
  • phump: I tried to figure out how many consecutive ps I could string together and started making a sound like this
  • pkg Somehow not taken yet, hurry!

whoops posted these in the wrong task:

Phrame? (frame)
Phramework?
Interphusion?
Phreight? (freight)

I think I got some good ones in there :P

arcanist has nice arc command...

so maybe go for "Phundle" and have command phun ?
Generally I like phundle best.

Other I could come up with sound... eh: apt-get: pha-get (try saying that out loud in office, I dare You).

epriestley claimed this task.

I think we aren't actually going to have a standalone binary for this (i.e., the CLI will just be arc install, etc., with a possible bin/whatever standalone in Phabricator that doesn't need namespacing) so I suppose we can just call it "Packages".

This conflates a little with Owners but maybe we could rename the Owners objects to "Claims", which I think has a reasonable ring to it.

Are we sure "Packages" is cool enough?

epriestley renamed this task from Choose a cool name for a package management application to Choose the most straightforward possible name for a package management application.Aug 18 2015, 8:31 PM

huh? wut?

It's definitely little uncool, but not needing a binary makes it a bit less relevant.

I think this will also probably be an application that new users interact with (e.g., new hires installing stuff) but don't actually use meaningfully (e.g., they're not publishing anything to it) and which doesn't have third-party alternatives, so that tends to increase the costs (new user cognative load) and decrease the benefits (disambiguation, googleability) of having a more unique name, at least a bit.

None of the suggestions on this task seemed that amazing, either. We can still change it before it unprototypes if anyone comes up with something amazing.