What should this package be named?

[DilumAluthge]

Before we register this package (#4), we should decide on the name.

Should the package be called LSFClusterManager.jl (singular), or LSFClusterManagers.jl (plural)? Or should it be named something else entirely?

@DrChainsaw What are your thoughts here?

[DilumAluthge]

I think it should probably be pluralized, based on the package naming guidelines here:

Packages that provide most of their functionality in association with a new type should have pluralized names.

[DrChainsaw]

I got a bit tripped up by the all caps of LSF, but I don't think it is better to ensure the package name and repo name are consistent and I don't think it is worth it to rename the repo for this.

[DilumAluthge]

It's really easy to rename the repo - takes like 10 seconds. So don't worry about that being a barrier.

What name did you have in mind? LsfClusterManagers.jl? Or something else?

[bjarthur]

i would suggest LSF.jl were it not that MPI.jl exists and so MPIClusterManagers.jl could not be renamed similarly. similarly for Slurm.jl.

[DilumAluthge]

Hmmm. I'm not a huge fan of three-letter package names, so I'd recommend something like LoadSharingFacility.jl over just LSF.jl, given that "LSF" likely has different meanings in different domains.

We also do have a bit of a trend with ClusterManagers.jl, SlurmClusterManager.jl, and MPIClusterManagers.jl, so it might be nice to have a convention to have "cluster" somewhere in these package names.

So maybe LSFClusters.jl instead of LSFClusterManagers.jl?

[DilumAluthge]

Bump @DrChainsaw @bjarthur Any additional naming thoughts here?

As I wrote above, I'm not a fan of three-letter package names, so I'm not very enthusiastic about LSF.jl.

We also do have the convention at this point of ClusterManagers.jl, SlurmClusterManager.jl, MPIClusterManagers.jl, and K8sClusterManagers.jl.

So I'd suggest that we use one of the following names:

• LSFClusterManager.jl
• LSFClusterManagers.jl (the current name)
• LSFCluster.jl
• LSFClusters.jl
• LSFManagers.jl

From the above list, I think LSFClusterManager.jl or LSFClusterManagers.jl would be most consistent with the existing convention.

[DrChainsaw]

I'm fine either way. To prevent decision limbo I'll vote for LSFClusterManagers.jl but I'll happily let @bjarthur have the final vote. I don't love the capitalized LSF but I'm ok with it since MPI uses the same convention.

[bjarthur]

singular makes more sense to me as there is just one cluster manager in this package, whereas ClusterManagers.jl had many (LSF, Slurm, etc.)

[DilumAluthge]

Singular seems fine to me. We do have the precedent of the already-register SlurmClusterManager.jl being singular.

Here is my PR to rename this package from plural to singular: #16.

[DilumAluthge]

Alright, I've renamed this package from plural to singular.