2.0 release

[LinusDierheimer]

This project has outgrown my personal hobby project, so i like to discuss a few options about what to do with the repository when we release 2.0:

• transfer to an organization
• keep everything as is under my account
• fork to an organization, archive this repository

I'd prefer option 1, but i don't know how package managers etc targeting 1.* versions would handle that.

[LinusDierheimer]

We should also think about a good name for the organization. Fastfetch is on the hand, but in the long term we might split out usefull parts as extra libraries etc, so maybe we need a common name.

Turns out we can't use fastfetch anyway, since https://github.com/fastfetch already exists.

[LinusDierheimer]

From the GitHub docs:

All links to the previous repository location are automatically redirected to the new location. When you use git clone, git fetch, or git push on a transferred repository, these commands will redirect to the new repository location or URL.

I think we are fine transfering it.

[CarterLi]

What about libfastfetch, or shorter, libfetch?

Or fastfetch-cli

[LinusDierheimer]

What about libfastfetch, or shorter, libfetch? Or fastfetch-cli

Those all seem like the name of a single repository, not the name of the organization containing all of them

[CarterLi]

Or fastfetch-cli

I actually took the idea from Macchina-CLI, which is also a neofetch like CLI tool.

Fastfetch-CLI ( the group name name )
  |- fastfetch ( the CLI program exe file )
  |- libfastfetch ( the library name behind exe. May be compiled into a so / dylib / dll in the future )

[LinusDierheimer]

I did go this way.