Rename pacticipant to participant
Tim Jones
Pacticipant is a nice pun (and I do love puns), but it's hard to type, easy to misread as participant, and occasionally results in PRs to change it to participant. Also, I think "participant" carries the appropriate meaning.
Beth
If/when I rename it in v2, it will just be "application". The short flag in the CLI is "-a" for this reason. Making it "participant" would be a recipe for bugs I think as it's so close.
Beth
Can I state for the public record how MUCH I regret "pacticipant"! I generally dislike puns, so I have no idea what led me to use this name. It was chosen when I thought this was just going to be a little internal service used by a few companies max. I had no idea that so many people (myself included!) were going to be caused typing issues for so many years!
Beth
If/when I rename it in v2, it will just be "application". The short flag in the CLI is "-a" for this reason. Making it "participant" would be a recipe for bugs I think as it's so close.
Y
Yann Courtel
Why not 'asset'? it's short and we use it a lot to mix up any microservice or app.
Antonello Caboni
Yann Courtel: asset makes me think of web assets 🤔
Antonello Caboni
I love pacticipant!
Matt Fellows
I think application would be better, personally. Or something that relates more to software than to a "participant in an agreement".
Matt Fellows
One of the main benefits to "participant" is that you could alias it without documenting it potentially because they are so close in spelling. I need to check, but I think the CLI tools have this alias in places.