repo name #3

mpadge commented 2026年02月12日 14:10:39 +01:00

Suggestions in r-codeberg/migration-guide#36 from @defuneste and @pat-s thus far:

• forgeutils
• hammer

I'm personally disinclined for forge-related names, because (1) the whole idea of a "forge" is super old-school, and unlikely to survive long-term; and (2) I also associate "forge" with singular, centralised, solid, immobile things, which is kinda the opposite of where I hope code hosting actually goes. But really I don't mind that much, and do note that hammer is free on cran, and somebody should definitely grab that 🔨.

Other suggestions from me:

• gitremote (for interacting with remote git-hosting instances)

Suggestions in https://codeberg.org/r-codeberg/migration-guide/issues/36 from @defuneste and @pat-s thus far: - forgeutils - hammer I'm personally disinclined for forge-related names, because (1) the whole idea of a "forge" is super old-school, and unlikely to survive long-term; and (2) I also associate "forge" with singular, centralised, solid, immobile things, which is kinda the opposite of where I hope code hosting actually goes. But really I don't mind that much, and do note that hammer is [free on cran](https://cran.r-project.org/package=hammer), and somebody should definitely grab that 🔨. Other suggestions from me: - gitremote (for interacting with remote git-hosting instances)

pat-s commented 2026年02月12日 14:20:44 +01:00

1. the whole idea of a "forge" is super old-school, and unlikely to survive long-term; and (2) I also associate "forge" with singular, centralised, solid, immobile things, which is kinda the opposite of where I hope code hosting actually goes.

First time I hear about that interpretation. "Forge" to me is just an implementation "type" for a Git (remote) platform and in all discussions in the recent years where I saw it being referenced people were using it as a term to define the class of "GitHub/Gitlab/Gitea/Forgejo/BB". I'd actually say it's a newish wording to describe that case and I am quite wondering about it being perceived as "old-school". However, I am not bound to it and don't have a strong preference being included in the package name.

Not a fan of "hammer" at all, I don't see why and how that would fit the scope in a descriptive manner.

gitremote

I'd prefer gittools in that case but overall I also think having "git" in the name is somewhat limiting and wouldn't play well with (potential) functions targeting CICD bootstrapping.

> 1) the whole idea of a "forge" is super old-school, and unlikely to survive long-term; and (2) I also associate "forge" with singular, centralised, solid, immobile things, which is kinda the opposite of where I hope code hosting actually goes. First time I hear about that interpretation. "Forge" to me is just an implementation "type" for a Git (remote) platform and in all discussions in the recent years where I saw it being referenced people were using it as a term to define the class of "GitHub/Gitlab/Gitea/Forgejo/BB". I'd actually say it's a newish wording to describe that case and I am quite wondering about it being perceived as "old-school". However, I am not bound to it and don't have a strong preference being included in the package name. Not a fan of "hammer" at all, I don't see why and how that would fit the scope in a descriptive manner. > gitremote I'd prefer `gittools` in that case but overall I also think having "git" in the name is somewhat limiting and wouldn't play well with (potential) functions targeting CICD bootstrapping.

dgkf commented 2026年02月12日 15:09:42 +01:00

Agree with @pat-s on "forge". I think it's taking on a modern definition and probably anyone who associates it with the git hosts of the 90s/00s probably is savvy enough to either not need this package or look past the older definition.

I think we need to decide whether this will do forgejo-specific actions using forgejo APIs, or just be a git and local workflow tool. I was under the impression that usethis probably has a lot of the local workflow bases covered, so this package would be primarily for codeberg (forgejo) interaction.

I'm actually not sure how "forgejo" is supposed to be pronounced, but in my head I say it like "dojo" so I riffed on that.

forgejo-specific:

• forgeflow
• joflow
• mojo (forgejomojo)
• dojo (forgejodojo)

Agree with @pat-s on "forge". I think it's taking on a modern definition and probably anyone who associates it with the git hosts of the 90s/00s probably is savvy enough to either not need this package or look past the older definition. I think we need to decide whether this will do forgejo-specific actions using forgejo APIs, or just be a git and local workflow tool. I was under the impression that `usethis` probably has a lot of the local workflow bases covered, so this package would be primarily for codeberg (forgejo) interaction. I'm actually not sure how "forgejo" is supposed to be pronounced, but in my head I say it like "dojo" so I riffed on that. forgejo-specific: * `forgeflow` * `joflow` * `mojo` (`forgejomojo`) * `dojo` (`forgejodojo`)

mpadge commented 2026年02月13日 10:06:31 +01:00

@dgkf Cool, then I'll happily retract my opinions of "forge". I think your suggestions are great!

More generally, I definitely see primary advantage here being interacting with multiple remote code-hosting whatevers. I think the local git functionality of {usethis} doesn't need replicating at all, as @pat-s already said here, as well as @adamhsparks shortly after.

Summary: Remote-only, and name befitting that.

@dgkf Cool, then I'll happily retract my opinions of "forge". I think your suggestions are great! More generally, I definitely see primary advantage here being interacting with multiple remote code-hosting whatevers. I think the local git functionality of {usethis} doesn't need replicating at all, as @pat-s already said [here](https://codeberg.org/r-codeberg/migration-guide/issues/36#issuecomment-10528510), as well as @adamhsparks [shortly after](https://codeberg.org/r-codeberg/migration-guide/issues/36#issuecomment-10532134). Summary: Remote-only, and name befitting that.

defuneste commented 2026年02月19日 02:04:58 +01:00

Ok let ́s go with forgeflow! I will rename it now.

cc @mpadge @pat-s @dgkf

(if everyone is happy or do not move I am closing this one next week)

Ok let ́s go with forgeflow! I will rename it now. cc @mpadge @pat-s @dgkf (if everyone is happy or do not move I am closing this one next week)