Discussion: Change the name of this repository to a more appropriate name about ngen-cal HOT 12 OPEN

Makes sense! I like either of the first two names. While the repo is entirely python, naming the repo with tools/utils seems the most descriptive.

from ngen-cal.

My mind went to ngen-utils on its own, so I'd probably go with that (or possibly ngen-py-utils; see below). It conveys the relationship to ngen, the general purpose, and the notion of there being several things within. That said, I think I would be fine with the other similar suggestions in the description.

Now, if the powers-that-be also decided to exclusively make this repo a place for Python tools, then adding the py component to the name might be a good idea; i.e, ngen-py-utils. Otherwise, I'd try to leave py out.

Also, fwiw, I'd be worried about just ngen-py by itself causing confusing, as it kind of suggests a Python implementation of ngen (in addition to the question of whether non-Python tools will ever be added).

from ngen-cal.

My first thought was ngen-toolbox, but I think ngen-tools and ngen-utils may be better/more concise but just as descriptive. Some other thoughts; ngen-pybox, ngen-pytools, ngen-utilipys, ngen-pyhelpers, ...

I actually kind of like ngen-pybox.

from ngen-cal.

ndk so we can confuse native development kit with ngen development kit 🤣

I'm quite ok with scrapping the ngen-cal name in favor of something very generic, possibly not even ngen related and maintaining a better description and README to help explain the goings on in the repository.

jobless.celery was a good candidate from this generator

Some perhaps more apt descriptive names from an AI generator

• hydro-hysteria 🤔
• flow-follies
• ngen-tech
• model-mischief, aka ngen-mischief
• ngen-ninjas
• water-whackers

Though as I write this, the ngen-dk repository might be a nice, a simple name implying development kit functionality for ngen which could host fundamental things like ngen configuration and bmi configuration through to calibration and uses/application of ngen. If it maintains a strong python focus we can use ngen-py-dk if we want to use some python branding.

from ngen-cal.

Yeah, I like where your mind is wandering @hellkite500. Why not just ngen-dev-kit?

from ngen-cal.

Why not just ngen-dev-kit?

I'm a lazy typer, and dk is quite fast to hit the two keystrokes on the same row, compared to dev-kit which requires keys on all three 🤣

Other than that, no real preference between the two.

from ngen-cal.

I'm leaning toward ngen-tools.

Consider mine another vote against naming the repository with py just because the current stuff all happens to be in Python.

from ngen-cal.

My biggest concern with tools is that it will imply a landing spot for any ngen related "tool", e.g. simple workflow scripts, analysis scripts, ect. We already have to decouple some of these things and re-organize to try to keep clean lines between supporting libraries and "development tools" and "script/analysis tools" which are more on-off and less general.

from ngen-cal.

We can try to hold something of a line against accepting PRs like that into this repo

from ngen-cal.

Revisiting this with some fresh thoughts. Here are a few other options:

• hangar
• ngen-depot
• ngen-room

from ngen-cal.

@aaraney, my immediate reaction to those latest three was, "why?" And I mean that in the purest sense: they seem neither appropriate nor inappropriate at first glance, so I'm curious what was behind those.

My biggest concern with tools is that it will imply a landing spot for any ngen related "tool", e.g. simple workflow scripts, analysis scripts, ect.

@hellkite500, that's a valid concern, but I don't think it aligns well with what's happened in practice with the repo. I.e., where exactly is the line for what belongs here versus what doesn't?

If we have to be very nuanced to unambiguously describe that line, we probably can't come up with any suggestive, concise name for the repo that doesn't risk misinterpretation. In which case, we'd either have to accept that risk or adopt a name that does not imply purpose and/or contents of the repo, forcing people to learn those things more deliberately (maybe that's what was behind those last three suggested names?).

Alternatively, it may be appropriate to rethink whether the repo name is right and it is the contents that need to be changed/moved. That's not a small question, but this issue comes up because things that maybe could/should have gone somewhere else were put in this repo. At least relative to it's prior contents at the time, this seems like using the repo in a way much like what Nels was concerned about. And it might be difficult going forward to clearly define rules for what does and doesn't belong if the history of the repo is inconsistent with the general principles behind how we'd want to distinguish things now.

from ngen-cal.

@aaraney, my immediate reaction to those latest three was, "why?" And I mean that in the purest sense: they seem neither appropriate nor inappropriate at first glance, so I'm curious what was behind those.

Just trying to come up with names that were a bit more fun and included a play-on-words. Im certainly open to something like that.

from ngen-cal.