name of binary

[boot2docker]

name of binary

[riobard]

I would stick with boot2docker, but I usually alias it to b2d for day-to-day usage :)

[tianon]

I can include this in my Dockerfile fixing PR, if you'd like. :)

[tianon]

(I'm +1 on keeping the binary "boot2docker".)

[aheissenberger]

+1 for "boot2docker"

[tianon]

As @SvenDowideit pointed out to me in IRC, keeping the name of the OS separate from the name of the CLI is a good thing to help reduce confusion, so I officially change my vote to be +1 for "boot2docker-cli" (and @SvenDowideit's vote is for that too, because it's obvious and clear).

Which actually makes our build script even simpler again. ;)

[SvenDowideit]

we can't continue to have a tool with the same name as the OS - it makes it very hard to communicate to users which you're talking about.

I'm happy to go with any name, other than boot2docker by itself - and boot2docker-manage was too long :)

btw, I actually renamed the output because the docker cp boot2docker-cli:/data/boot2docker . was overwriting the boot2docker source directory. so builds were destructive :)

so

-1 for boot2docker from me

[SvenDowideit]

@steeve you're the BDFL and can choose if we go back to calling it boot2docker, or not :)

[aheissenberger]

ok - I change my vote to boot2docker-cli

[riobard]

I'm fine with the change. One question: do we change the name in Homebrew?

[tianon]

I would think so. They've probably got some kind of transition policy for this kind of thing, I'd imagine, especially since the thing in Homebrew right now is just the shell script, right?

[steeve]

I agree with y'all. I'd say we keep the name in order not to break existing command lines. But indeed the confusion is becoming a problem.
👍 for boot2docker-cli then.

As for Homebrew, I think they won't be happy. But since they accept formula via PRs, I'm guessing they will accept it anyway.

[SvenDowideit]

ok, vote counted, and issue closed :)