Personally, I am really attached to the name and part of me is really hoping the two identically named projects can coexist separately. However, I understand that this can definitely lead to some confusion having two projects in the world that use the term "payload" and related to (but not affiliated with) U-Boot.
As such, I just wanted to create a tracker item to publicly recognize this, gather my thoughts, mull over things a bit, and provide a single thread where any relevant stakeholders can easily make their thoughts known... if it's even remotely an issue to them.
Was this intentional?
No. I went through a bunch of really terrible names over the course of months, and this was the one that I finally was excited with.
I would like to be a good FOSS citizen and certainly do not wish to cause confusion for aforementioned projects.
Post Mortem - Jon! How did you manage to miss this?
When going through half a dozen (really terrible) project name candidates, I did honestly try to avoid collisions. Before finalizing on "Depthcharge" I was looking for other Python modules in PyPi and Linux distributions' package repositories, as well as subdomains on readthedocs.io.
My oversight appears to have been being so focused on the Python-centric and name availability in packaging/doc/distribution aspects that I failed to actually look for " U-Boot" In retrospect -- duh, Jon.
Who had the name first?
The other "depthcharge". Let's just say that I'm late to the party... as usual.
commit d3e73282eaf7b8420f0cd6ed1a4c60c039c1eb95
Author: Gabe B. <#snip#@google.com>
Date: Sat Mar 10 18:58:29 2012 -0800
What is your plan, regarding this?
For now, I'm keeping the name as-is. It's a small project and an initial body of work that I plain to maintain and continue developing. In comparison to an 8 year-old codebase in a major FOSS project -- this is small potatoes and may not even be a blip on their radar. I certainly would like my work to grow and evolve, and thus feel it's important to at least have some sort of a plan.
At this time, I don't think the disambiguation is too hard...
Are you a security researcher analyzing and attacking U-Boot?You want this code.Are you doing something with a Chromebook or Chromium project?This is not the code you're looking for.
If users of begin expressing actual confusion beyond "lol smooth move Jon" - I could together some disambiguation blurbs in the README and front page that redirects people looking for the Coreboot payload to the correct pages. (However, this could backfire and allow search engines to pick up more in bound links, only exacerbating the problem I've created.)
If it becomes painfully apparent that I am indeed creating significant consternation for the Chromium / Coreboot folks -- I will plan to transition the project to a new name before creating a 1.0.0 stable API release.
Suggestions are welcome. Amusing nautical puns are strongly encouraged.
jynik
commented
1 year ago
Overview
It quickly came to my attention that in my attempt to be clever with the whole "Sinking U-Boots with Depthcharge" pun, I've inadvertently selected a project name that collides with the depthcharge Coreboot payload that's the successor to U-Boot on Chromebooks.
Personally, I am really attached to the name and part of me is really hoping the two identically named projects can coexist separately. However, I understand that this can definitely lead to some confusion having two projects in the world that use the term "payload" and related to (but not affiliated with) U-Boot.
As such, I just wanted to create a tracker item to publicly recognize this, gather my thoughts, mull over things a bit, and provide a single thread where any relevant stakeholders can easily make their thoughts known... if it's even remotely an issue to them.
Was this intentional?
No. I went through a bunch of really terrible names over the course of months, and this was the one that I finally was excited with.
I would like to be a good FOSS citizen and certainly do not wish to cause confusion for aforementioned projects.
Post Mortem - Jon! How did you manage to miss this?
When going through half a dozen (really terrible) project name candidates, I did honestly try to avoid collisions. Before finalizing on "Depthcharge" I was looking for other Python modules in PyPi and Linux distributions' package repositories, as well as subdomains on readthedocs.io.
My oversight appears to have been being so focused on the Python-centric and name availability in packaging/doc/distribution aspects that I failed to actually look for " U-Boot" In retrospect -- duh, Jon.
Who had the name first?
The other "depthcharge". Let's just say that I'm late to the party... as usual.
What is your plan, regarding this?
For now, I'm keeping the name as-is. It's a small project and an initial body of work that I plain to maintain and continue developing. In comparison to an 8 year-old codebase in a major FOSS project -- this is small potatoes and may not even be a blip on their radar. I certainly would like my work to grow and evolve, and thus feel it's important to at least have some sort of a plan.
At this time, I don't think the disambiguation is too hard...
Are you a security researcher analyzing and attacking U-Boot? You want this code. Are you doing something with a Chromebook or Chromium project? This is not the code you're looking for.
If users of begin expressing actual confusion beyond "lol smooth move Jon" - I could together some disambiguation blurbs in the README and front page that redirects people looking for the Coreboot payload to the correct pages. (However, this could backfire and allow search engines to pick up more in bound links, only exacerbating the problem I've created.)
If it becomes painfully apparent that I am indeed creating significant consternation for the Chromium / Coreboot folks -- I will plan to transition the project to a new name before creating a 1.0.0 stable API release.
Suggestions are welcome. Amusing nautical puns are strongly encouraged.