-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 7
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
Conversation
@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) |
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
|
To vote for 1. thumbs up this comment |
To vote for 2. thumbs up this comment |
To vote for 3. thumbs up this comment |
@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 |
Sounds good thanks
|
@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) |
Updated the DL with information based on these votes. |
- What I did
- How I did it
- How to verify it
- Description for the changelog
docs: Create 2023-11-rename-sshrv(d).md