[ltt-dev] LTTng-UST -> UST

[ltt-dev] LTTng-UST -> UST

[Nils Carlson]

When discussing LTTng-UST I very often run into some confusion about the name, specifically people assume I'm talking about LTTng.
In order to reduce the amount of confusion I suggest we rename LTTng-UST to just UST.

Pierre-Marc, Mathieu, everyone else, any comments?
/Nils

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.casi.polymtl.ca/pipermail/lttng-dev/attachments/20100901/b85b9165/attachment-0002.htm>

[ltt-dev] LTTng-UST -> UST

[Nils Carlson]

When discussing LTTng-UST I very often run into some confusion about the name, specifically people assume I'm talking about LTTng.
In order to reduce the amount of confusion I suggest we rename LTTng-UST to just UST.

Pierre-Marc, Mathieu, everyone else, any comments?
/Nils

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.casi.polymtl.ca/pipermail/lttng-dev/attachments/20100901/b85b9165/attachment-0003.htm>

[ltt-dev] LTTng-UST -> UST

[Nils Carlson]

When discussing LTTng-UST I very often run into some confusion about the name, specifically people assume I'm talking about LTTng.
In order to reduce the amount of confusion I suggest we rename LTTng-UST to just UST.

Pierre-Marc, Mathieu, everyone else, any comments?
/Nils

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.casi.polymtl.ca/pipermail/ltt-dev/attachments/20100901/b85b9165/attachment.htm>

[ltt-dev] LTTng-UST -> UST

[David Goulet]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hey Nils,

On 10-09-01 06:52 AM, Nils Carlson wrote:
> When discussing LTTng-UST I very often run into some confusion about the name, specifically people assume I'm talking about LTTng.
> In order to reduce the amount of confusion I suggest we rename LTTng-UST to just UST.

I agree on the part that confusion is often seen. UST should be link to the
LTTng project without a doubt. Changing name at this point... this can be quite
a big deal...

Are you suggesting only a *formal* change of name in term of web site and manual
or a complete refact of the code, the tools (ustctl, ustd, usttrace) and the git
repo?..

Thanks
David

> 
> Pierre-Marc, Mathieu, everyone else, any comments?
> /Nils
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ltt-dev mailing list
> ltt-dev at lists.casi.polymtl.ca
> http://lists.casi.polymtl.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ltt-dev

- -- 
David Goulet
LTTng project, DORSAL Lab.

1024D/16BD8563
BE3C 672B 9331 9796 291A  14C6 4AF7 C14B 16BD 8563
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkx+TEYACgkQSvfBSxa9hWPOUQCgx78deAU8dEtLWebjb13a7rs8
vSEAn0GEyEAOdR4AhvcG+BCJASPhELTM
=AKfV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[ltt-dev] LTTng-UST -> UST

[Pierre-Marc Fournier]

Hi Nils,

I'm not sure I understand the problem you are referring to.

You are always free to say just UST, the tarballs are called ust.tar.gz, the Debian package name is ust.

In what context do you see the project called LTTng-UST? Do you feel that it comes from the website? Are you proposing a separate website be made for ust?

pmf

----- Original message -----
> When discussing LTTng-UST I very often run into some confusion about the
> name, specifically people assume I'm talking about LTTng. In order to
> reduce the amount of confusion I suggest we rename LTTng-UST to just UST.
> 
> Pierre-Marc, Mathieu, everyone else, any comments?
> /Nils
> 

[ltt-dev] LTTng-UST -> UST

[Nils Carlson]

Maybe the problem is in my head... :-) I'm actually just talking about the 
title on the webpage, code and manuals already just say UST mostly.

My problem is that managers are going to the UST website and noting 
LTTng-UST. Then they shorten it to LTTng (as they don't know better) which 
confuses everyone who knows about LTTng (the patches on the kernel). Then, 
once it's been explained to them about the kernel, and userspace, and how 
they're different and separate and so on they start coming up with new 
things. Yesterday I managed to stop one of them writing down LTTng-KST 
(kernelspace tracer). :-/

So, sorry for all the commotion.

But maybe in the long-term we don't want to be called LTTng-UST? It's a 
bit of a mouthfull and UST is short and sweet and doesn't share even part 
of the name with another project. It's also better from a marketing 
perspective. Just changing the title on the webpage and changing the 
README would pretty much do it.

/Nils

On Wed, 1 Sep 2010, Pierre-Marc Fournier wrote:

> Hi Nils,
>
> I'm not sure I understand the problem you are referring to.
>
> You are always free to say just UST, the tarballs are called ust.tar.gz, the Debian package name is ust.
>
> In what context do you see the project called LTTng-UST? Do you feel that it comes from the website? Are you proposing a separate website be made for ust?
>
> pmf
>
> ----- Original message -----
>> When discussing LTTng-UST I very often run into some confusion about the
>> name, specifically people assume I'm talking about LTTng. In order to
>> reduce the amount of confusion I suggest we rename LTTng-UST to just UST.
>>
>> Pierre-Marc, Mathieu, everyone else, any comments?
>> /Nils
>>
>
>

[ltt-dev] LTTng-UST -> UST

[Mathieu Desnoyers]

Agreed, different names would be good. Sticking with a "LTT" derivative
has hurt the LTTng project more than anything else in terms of
mainlining into the Linux kernel. Some kernel developers don't care if
it's a complete re-write, they remember old fights.

So I'm fine with "UST", as long as we specify somewhere in the project
page that it is a port of the kernel lttng to userspace.

I actually pointed that out a while ago when the TMF project were
starting to simply use "LTTng" to name their viewer module. It seems
like they still use that name alone sometimes, which can cause some
degree of confusion. "LTTng viewer plugin" seems to be too long to spell
out.

Thanks,

Mathieu

* Nils Carlson (nils.carlson at ericsson.com) wrote:
> Maybe the problem is in my head... :-) I'm actually just talking about 
> the title on the webpage, code and manuals already just say UST mostly.
>
> My problem is that managers are going to the UST website and noting  
> LTTng-UST. Then they shorten it to LTTng (as they don't know better) 
> which confuses everyone who knows about LTTng (the patches on the 
> kernel). Then, once it's been explained to them about the kernel, and 
> userspace, and how they're different and separate and so on they start 
> coming up with new things. Yesterday I managed to stop one of them 
> writing down LTTng-KST (kernelspace tracer). :-/
>
> So, sorry for all the commotion.
>
> But maybe in the long-term we don't want to be called LTTng-UST? It's a  
> bit of a mouthfull and UST is short and sweet and doesn't share even part 
> of the name with another project. It's also better from a marketing  
> perspective. Just changing the title on the webpage and changing the  
> README would pretty much do it.
>
> /Nils
>
> On Wed, 1 Sep 2010, Pierre-Marc Fournier wrote:
>
>> Hi Nils,
>>
>> I'm not sure I understand the problem you are referring to.
>>
>> You are always free to say just UST, the tarballs are called ust.tar.gz, the Debian package name is ust.
>>
>> In what context do you see the project called LTTng-UST? Do you feel that it comes from the website? Are you proposing a separate website be made for ust?
>>
>> pmf
>>
>> ----- Original message -----
>>> When discussing LTTng-UST I very often run into some confusion about the
>>> name, specifically people assume I'm talking about LTTng. In order to
>>> reduce the amount of confusion I suggest we rename LTTng-UST to just UST.
>>>
>>> Pierre-Marc, Mathieu, everyone else, any comments?
>>> /Nils
>>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ltt-dev mailing list
> ltt-dev at lists.casi.polymtl.ca
> http://lists.casi.polymtl.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ltt-dev
>

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com

[ltt-dev] LTTng-UST -> UST

[Pierre-Marc Fournier]

----- Original message -----
> Maybe the problem is in my head... :-) I'm actually just talking about
> the?  title on the webpage, code and manuals already just say UST mostly.
> 
> My problem is that managers are going to the UST website and noting 
> LTTng-UST. Then they shorten it to LTTng (as they don't know better)
> which?  confuses everyone who knows about LTTng (the patches on the
> kernel). Then,?  once it's been explained to them about the kernel, and
> userspace, and how?  they're different and separate and so on they start
> coming up with new?  things. Yesterday I managed to stop one of them
> writing down LTTng-KST?  (kernelspace tracer). :-/
> 
> So, sorry for all the commotion.
> 
> But maybe in the long-term we don't want to be called LTTng-UST? It's a 
> bit of a mouthfull and UST is short and sweet and doesn't share even
> part?  of the name with another project. It's also better from a
> marketing?  perspective. Just changing the title on the webpage and
> changing the?  README would pretty much do it.
> 

I have no problem with these changes.

pmf

> /Nils
> 
> On Wed, 1 Sep 2010, Pierre-Marc Fournier wrote:
> 
> > Hi Nils,
> > 
> > I'm not sure I understand the problem you are referring to.
> > 
> > You are always free to say just UST, the tarballs are called
> > ust.tar.gz, the Debian package name is ust.
> > 
> > In what context do you see the project called LTTng-UST? Do you feel
> > that it comes from the website? Are you proposing a separate website
> > be made for ust?
> > 
> > pmf
> > 
> > ----- Original message -----
> > > When discussing LTTng-UST I very often run into some confusion about
> > > the name, specifically people assume I'm talking about LTTng. In
> > > order to reduce the amount of confusion I suggest we rename
> > > LTTng-UST to just UST.
> > > 
> > > Pierre-Marc, Mathieu, everyone else, any comments?
> > > /Nils
> > > 
> > 
> >