Name clash with an old Java IDE

[hcarty]

Maybe no longer relevant - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JBuilder - but worth noting! Pointed out by a colleague.

[ghost]

Yh, I know the name is rubbish... I'm just not good at finding names

[rdavison]

Are you inviting us to bike shed the name? :)

[ghost]

Haha, sure go on

[hcarty]

Oh no! My actions have had unforeseen (but in hindsight easily foreseeable...) consequences!

[lpw25]

I think it would be best to just switch the name to obuilder. A quick google doesn't show any real conflicts, and it is close enough to jbuilder that it shouldn't cause much confusion. I suppose people might confuse it with obuild, but there are only so many combinations of OCaml and build that you can make. The alternative would be to just pick some random name, but that seems like it would lead to a lot of bike-shedding.

Updating the documentation, adding the packages to opam and an announcement on the discuss forum, the caml-list and maybe /r/ocaml should be all that's needed to make the switch.

[lpw25]

Also, this really needs to happen before the 1.0 release if possible.

[dra27]

It must be dealt with before the 1.0 release - CodeGear still have a valid trademark on it (https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-tmcase/page/Results/4/EU002533685)

[dra27]

@lpw25's suggestion of obuilder sounds good to me (when said aloud, obuilder build has a suitably deific ring to it, as an invocation!).

Given that there's no risk of conflict with the actual software, we could continue to offer a jbuilder command as well, just with a deprecation warning.

[yminsky]

Does that mean we should change from jbuild files to obuild files?

…

On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 7:20 AM, David Allsopp ***@***.***> wrote: @lpw25 <https://github.com/lpw25>'s suggestion of obuilder sounds good to me (when said aloud, obuilder build has a suitably deific ring to it, as an invocation!). Given that there's no risk of conflict with the actual software, we could continue to offer a jbuilder command as well, just with a deprecation warning. — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#188 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AArqJpU7Ls8uvbNK3gPC0l5qJ277n4wyks5sQyyYgaJpZM4OXml0> .

[dra27]

Prefer obuild and fall back to jbuild otherwise, again with a deprecation warning?

[rgrinberg]

IMO name clashes such as this are unavoidable and what's important is that jbuilder is a unique name among ocaml software. Changing the name will cause nothing but pointless churn.

[dra27]

@rgrinberg - I'm afraid your opinion is in conflict with law!

[samoht]

can we rename jbuilder to opam-build? This will allow people to write:

opam build

and the project will just build :-) Which also means that you don't need to specify build and buildtest commands anymore, by default they will just use the current jbuilder runes that everybody is using.

[ghost]

In the end we do need to change the name, I created this ticket for gathering suggestions: #360

[rgrinberg]

Do we also need a ticket to detail the work required for a painless transition

…

On Mon, Dec 11, 2017, 9:29 PM Jérémie Dimino ***@***.***> wrote: In the end we do need to change the name, I created this ticket for gathering suggestions: #360 <#360> — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#188 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAIe-1yZH2QblOI089ebFNwLrK4FnHNgks5s_S4dgaJpZM4OXml0> .

[ghost]

Sounds good

[rgrinberg]

I'm closing this ticket because we already have a ticket for brainstorming suggestions and a ticket to do the actual rename.