Keep the shadowing but don't default to the formula and always require disambiguation.

I like this approach, though a combination with the rename is probably good. For example: the software in the Docker cask is referred to as "Docker Desktop" everywhere on the Docker website, so that's probably a better name.

Keep the shadowing but don't default to the formula and always require disambiguation.

I like this approach, though a combination with the rename is probably good. For example: the software in the Docker cask is referred to as "Docker Desktop" everywhere on the Docker website, so that's probably a better name.

I second this. It may not make sense to rename all variations, but probably does for some, Docker being the notable example. I think keeping disambiguation is a good idea if it doesn't cause continued confusion, and does force a user decision.

If there's a desire to rename conflicting items: it's probably worthwhile to have a consistent scheme, TBD if this is a route decided. Keep the formula as-is with name, and have cask be name-prebuilt, name-upstream or something.

Keep the shadowing but don't default to the formula and always require disambiguation.

I like this approach

The reason I don't like this approach: we will need to pick a date when we start breaking e.g. brew install docker for everyone which sucks (given how much effort we go to e.g. handle renames, aliases, etc. gracefully).

For example: the software in the Docker cask is referred to as "Docker Desktop" everywhere on the Docker website, so that's probably a better name.

Agreed here. I think that's an easy case to fix.

and does force a user decision.

We should avoid forcing user decisions in cases like this, particularly when we have analytics. We should decide for them and, if we install the wrong thing, they can choose to uninstall and install the right one.

If there's a desire to rename conflicting items: it's probably worthwhile to have a consistent scheme, TBD if this is a route decided. Keep the formula as-is with name, and have cask be name-prebuilt, name-upstream or something.

I don't think it makes sense universally.

I know Homebrew/cask doesn't historically like foo-app but: this feels most appropriate when installing a .app, to me.

Docker is a nice example, though, of where "Docker Desktop" is actually the name that upstream uses, too.

More often than not, this should involve renaming the cask.

In the current loader implementation, this is likely required as the old formula name will still be found before trying casks.

In order to rename a formula, we would want to adjust priority so that we select:

1. current formula name (and maybe aliases?)
2. current cask name
3. old formula names
4. old cask names

Or automatically drop old names after some timeframe (months/year).

In order to rename a formula, we would want to adjust priority so that we select:

1. current formula name (and maybe aliases?)
2. current cask name
3. old formula names
4. old cask names

Or automatically drop old names after some timeframe (months/year).

This all sounds ideal and I agree 👍🏻. I think a year should be enough to drop old names; if we want them to outlive that they should be an alias.

1. current formula name (and maybe aliases?)
2. current cask name
3. old formula names
4. old cask names

FWIW I think this should be the order we load in regardless of the approach since at this point since casks are equally as official as formulae

@MikeMcQuaid This might sound stupidly simple, but when there is a conflict—and there is no obviously better alternative name—why not just add a cask-* prefix?

@danielbayley Yes, a prefix or a suffix would make sense here. I believe we've used -app as a suffix in the past for this.