shell: Rename the new-style lessons from 'bash' to 'shell' #222
Conversation
|
On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 10:23:51AM -0800, Aron Ahmadia wrote:
If we weren't looking for a short-and-sweet directory name, I'd prefer |
|
Let's call it 'shell' and move on :-) |
|
+1 |
|
@wking - Since this is going to be a slightly painful rename, I suggest we do it as soon as possible. Want to redo this PR and we can start fixing other PRs that touch this material? |
This is mostly about utilities with a few references to the basic POSIX shell, and hardly at all about Bash itself (as distinct from POSIX shells more generally). 'shell' is also consistent with the existing: * _includes/guide-shell * lessons/ref/shell.html * lessons/swc-shell * lessons/thw-shell If we weren't looking for a short-and-sweet directory name, I'd prefer "Shell & Utilities" which the POSIX folks presumably put some thought into [1] ;). These lessons are mainly about generic POSIX concepts (filesystem paths [2], basic utilities [3]). However, I think calling the directory 'posix' would confuse people :p. 'shell' is both familiar, roughly accurate (because we use the shell to teach the lessons), and not over-specific. If you want to talk about associative arrays (/shell/hash/intermediate? ;), than we're talking Bash instead of POSIX ;). [1]: http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/idx/xcu.html [2]: http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/V1_chap04.html#tag_04_12 [3]: http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/idx/utilities.html
|
On Sat, Feb 01, 2014 at 12:43:15PM -0800, W. Trevor King wrote:
Done. |
|
That sounds good to me. Unless I hear any klaxons I'll merge it in A On Saturday, February 1, 2014, W. Trevor King notifications@github.com
|
shell: Rename the new-style lessons from 'bash' to 'shell'
This is mostly about utilities with a few references to the basic POSIX shell,
and hardly at all about Bash itself (as distinct from POSIX shells more
generally). 'shell' is also consistent with the existing:
As requested in #221 1. This conflicts with some of the #221
changes though, so either this PR or that one will have to be rebased
(or otherwise integrated) with the other.