4 ms·

They’re probably going to have to change their name to something that does not have “git” in it: https://public-inbox.org/git/20170202022655.2jwvudhvo4hmueaw@si

by koolba 6y ago

They’re probably going to have to change their name to something that does not have “git” in it: https://public-inbox.org/git/20170202022655.2jwvudhvo4hmueaw@sigill.intra.peff.net/ https://public-inbox.org/git/20170202022655.2jwvudhvo4hmueaw...

bhickey 6y ago
> It's hard to hold them responsible for picking a name that violated a policy that didn't yet exist. fwiw, Gitenberg has been around at least since 2012.
metiscus 6y ago
They've been named like that for six years apparently so I'm not sure how that works for what you linked above. It is a valid point that hopefully doesn't cause problems.
sethish 6y ago
Gitenberg was one of the alternate spellings of Gutenberg in the 1400s.
- agumonkey 6y ago
  I propose Gytenberg
  - artiszt 6y ago
    or, widely accepted standard [in german and slavic-languages] way back then, 'v' instead of 'u', and vice versa
    - agumonkey 6y ago
      ah well for some reason the visual asthetics of gytenberg vs gvtenberg made me chose the former (even though at first I typed gvtenberg)