Skip to content
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

docs: Create 2023-11-rename-sshrv(d).md #112

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Dec 5, 2023
Merged

Conversation

XavierChanth
Copy link
Member

- What I did

  • Added an Engineering DL for renaming sshrvd to drop the "ssh" part

- How I did it

- How to verify it

- Description for the changelog
docs: Create 2023-11-rename-sshrv(d).md

@gkc
Copy link
Contributor

gkc commented Nov 15, 2023

@XavierChanth Another option might be to eliminate the tcp and/or socket bit entirely; e.g. use npnr and npnrd (no ports network rendezvous [daemon]). However my instincts are that it will be much cleaner for us to have separate binaries for tcp vs udp / etc in the future so I would lean towards something like tcpr/tcprd, or npsr/npsrd (no ports socket rendezvous)

@XavierChanth
Copy link
Member Author

Update from our architecture discussion today is to vote on a new naming scheme:

For now I'll keep things simple, as we've thrown a number of names into the mix

  1. Keep the same name - sshrv(d)
  2. Something specifically tcp related - e.g. tcprv(d), tcpsr(d), etc...
  3. Something generic to sockets - e.g. srv(d), sr(d), etc...

@XavierChanth
Copy link
Member Author

To vote for 1. thumbs up this comment

@XavierChanth
Copy link
Member Author

To vote for 2. thumbs up this comment

@XavierChanth
Copy link
Member Author

To vote for 3. thumbs up this comment

@cpswan
Copy link
Member

cpswan commented Nov 15, 2023

@XavierChanth let's set a deadline for the vote to Fri 2359UTC once that's passed you can update the decision and we can review/approve

@XavierChanth
Copy link
Member Author

Sounds good thanks

@XavierChanth let's set a deadline for the vote to Fri 2359UTC once that's passed you can update the decision and we can review/approve

@XavierChanth
Copy link
Member Author

XavierChanth commented Dec 1, 2023

@cconstab @gkc @cpswan - I kept this open an extra week, seems like generic to sockets is the agreed upon naming scheme. I am inclined to either go with srv(d) or sr(d)... but srv is already used by DNS, and SR is the marketing name for the Socket Rendezvous. So I am inclined to go with sr(d).

But, we also have shrd which is split-horizon-root-daemon... awfully close to srd...

naming things is fun.

@gkc
Copy link
Contributor

gkc commented Dec 1, 2023

@cconstab @gkc @cpswan - I kept this open an extra week, seems like generic to sockets is the agreed upon naming scheme. I am inclined to either go with srv(d) or sr(d)... but srv is already used by DNS, and SR is the marketing name for the Socket Rendezvous. So I am inclined to go with sr(d).

But, we also have shrd which is split-horizon-root-daemon... awfully close to srd...

naming things is fun.

We should rename shrd

I like sr(d)

@XavierChanth
Copy link
Member Author

Updated the DL with information based on these votes.

@XavierChanth XavierChanth merged commit 84782c2 into trunk Dec 5, 2023
2 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants