-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
daemon naming #232
Comments
cc @whyrusleeping @maybebtc @mappum @cryptix |
Which of these are you thinking? a) |
@maybebtc |
But I mean more in general, when referring to it in docs, tour, etc. |
I don't have any answers... just lenses. a) is weird. Agreed b) introduces a new binary. This may introduce complexity to the develop/deploy/use workflow. For instance, In the wild, it would be marginally easier to end up with mismatched versions, daemon/client incompatibility hiccups. On the other hand, Would it be referred to as [i] "the ipfsd daemon" or [ii] "ipfsd, the ipfs daemon" or [iii] "ipfsd", omitting the word daemon entirely? c) d) |
How about having a single binary (as is the case now) which has a
then the following is equivalent:
|
im a fan of |
Given what I know now, +1 |
Revert "Tidy up bootstrapping"
Should we be naming it "daemon" or "ipfsd"? I think "ipfsd" plays more to what people expect.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: