Fisher: fin + fisherman?

[ghost]

@fisherman/all

Recently, I released fin as an experiment, something along the lines of fisherman 2.0 and I am confident it's a step forward from what started a few months ago with fisherman.

It would be fantastic if we could merge these two projects together. They are quite different internally, so keeping them both as separate would not hurt either and I just created this issue to get some feedback.

What are your thoughts on this?

[andrewrynhard]

What do you consider to be the strengths of each? Does either lack where the other is better? I do think merging them is a good idea. It was quite confusing as a user to figure out which will work better for me. I would imagine this could be a deterrent for some that could drive them away.

[ghost]

I personally use fin and it does what it should do. No visible benefit of fisherman over fin for me.

[ghost]

It was quite confusing as a user to figure out which will work better for me.

I screwed up? 😅

I should have just released fin as a new version of fisherman. It's a massive change, so I took the easy way out I am created a new project. But I am going to fix that now.

I am going to merge fin into fisherman.

[andrewrynhard]

I like the name fin. Clean and simple, just like its implementation. Too bad it has to go!

[ghost]

The plan is to release fisherman 2.0 over the next hour. This is such a drastic change that we will jump from 1.5 to 2.0 in one go. Internally, it will exactly the same as fin, but with a different name and an even simpler CLI with fewer colors and flashy things.

WRT to the name, I'd like to go from fisher -> fin -> f.

[detailyang]

+1
agree with @bucaran merge these two projects together !!!! :grin:

[andrewrynhard]

I think you have something good going on with the theme of fisherman. The log outputs (argh), the package names (shark, fishtape). The whole vibe attracted me. IMHO f takes away from that. Ultimately it is just a name, but that is my two cents. I think a merge is a great idea.

[ghost]

@sotayamashita Well, fin was an experiment and the results show it's more robust than fisherman, so we will just upgrade fisherman source code to use fin's source code, and bye bye to fin. It's hard to define both, but in terms of features they are almost the same.

The only thing that will be missing is the search command.

[ghost]

@andrewrynhard

I think you have something good going on with the theme of fisherman

Thanks. That's why we are keeping this repo. Also, the "fisherman ecosystem" is a theme that I want to keep as well.

f is easier to type than fisher, and using fin would be nonsensical for existing fisherman users.

[ghost]

I already use f as an alias for fin. :smile:

[ghost]

On the other hand, it's easier to create an alias for fin/fisherman to f, than the other way around...

We could ship 2.0 with fisher as the CLI command and if the user wants to, they can create an alias for it. Or, we could be daredevil and game.

[orangecms]

Exactly!

[sijad]

why search command will be missed?

[ghost]

Because it will not be present in 2.0.

I will not actually "miss" it however :)

[sijad]

Upgrading to 2.0 will be smooth?

[ghost]

Good question. I don't think it will as smooth as previous upgrades. In fact, it may be impossible by the fact that 2.0 is entirely different and sits in a different directory too.

On the other hand, installing it will be very simple, so I am not worried about that.

[ghost]

https://github.com/fisherman/fisherman/tree/2.0.0

[ghost]

Will the installation be like stated here?

[ghost]

Yes. Exactly like this:

curl -Lo ~/.config/fish/functions/fisher.fish --create-dirs git.io/fisherman

[orangecms]

On ArchLinux it will be smooth. I will provide a non-git version when we have the Makefile merged. Then you can just use your favourite AUR helper to upgrade smoothly. However, since the API changes, scripts building on top of them (like the search function) will not work anymore or work differently. ;)

[alphapapa]

Just a couple of cents here:

1. I noticed that the fin repo is gone, gone, gone--well, all of the commits are. I understand you wanted to fold it into fisherman instead, but man, if I had started to use fin since you told me about it, and I had spent any time setting it up, I'd be rather annoyed that the repo was wiped out, leaving me hanging. This kind of thing is why I always feel like, if I don't fork a project as soon as I find it, the author might yank it out from under me. Instead of wiping out all of the commits, you could have just made a new commit that boldly proclaimed that it is deprecated and now part of Fisherman 2.0.

Knowing that you've done this in the past makes me leery of using your other projects in the future. Yes, I know fin was your experiment, but it was also released in a polished-looking repo, which communicates "you should use this!" to people. And anyone who did will now be sinking into the ocean to rest with the fishies. D: So, you might want to consider this in the future.

1. I also recommend against naming the project or the executable f. Generally such short names should be left for user abbreviations. For you, the project author, you're not going to forget what it's called, and you don't need to google for it. But for a user, especially one who installs some stuff and then doesn't touch it for months, f is not very memorable nor googlable. Besides, let Fish's tab autocompletion have a chance. ;)
2. Please consider signing your tags. It's very easy and gives some simple protection against MITM and other attacks. GitHub even makes it look nice, e.g: https://github.com/alphapapa/helm-org-rifle/tags

[ghost]

@alphapapa Hey

1. Yup, that was frankly reckless from my part. What will happen is fin will just be renamed fisherman, merged into this repo and released as fisherman 2.0.
   https://github.com/fisherman/fisherman/tree/2.0.0
2. Yeah, we discussed this at length on the slack channel. It will go on as fisher like you say.
3. I added my gpg key to github, is there anything else I need to add so my commits are signed?

[alphapapa]

I added my gpg key to github, is there anything else I need to add so my commits are signed?

You need to tag your releases (which I think you're already doing), and then sign and push the tags. In Magit it's as simple as t -s t, then push, for a new tag. If you're signing a tag that you've already pushed to GitHub, you'll have to force the tag creation (t -s -f t in Magit), and then force-push the tags like git push origin --tags --force (Magit doesn't seem to like force pushing tags for some reason).

[pickfire]

@bucaran, I like the merge but I like the name fin more than fisherman or fisher. So sad to see fin went out just like that. :sob:

[alphapapa]

I guess this is the end of fin.

...

:D

...

I mean, D:

[ghost]

The only thing that is going to change is the name, and hey I like fin more too, but the fisherman "brand" is more attractive, so it's just a little compromise we can all make.

The good news is that now everyone can benefit from fin, because fisherman will _be_ just fin.

@pickfire

Don't worry, he lives in you...

[ghost]

@alphapapa I guess this is the end of fin.

I don't know, we still have the repo, and the logo. We could make something useful with it and reuse the name. Just, not a plugin manager :)

[alphapapa]

I was just making a pun on fin/end, but yeah, that sounds like a good idea. :)

[ghost]

I was just making a pun on fin/end, but yeah, that sounds like a good idea. :)

Ahhhh, right, good one :P

[daenney]

Just create an alias or abbrev or function that returns fin to you 😄

[pickfire]

@bucaran, thanks a lot for that. :smile:

[ghost]

@alphapapa It took me a while to get through gpg, but I am happy. You'll never guess my passphrase.

[ghost]

c390b0b

[alphapapa]

@bucaran Hmm, sounds fishy to me.