About the name of the community fork

[mrnossiom]

Having a distinct name resolves the following

• since there is little chance we can get the original crate ownership, we need to publish under something else than tower-lsp
• avoids confusing users. Having a distinct name makes it easy to know when the fork is used

Some proposition from the original issue (in time order):

• tower-lsp2
• 2tower-2lsp
• hightower-lsp
• tower-lzp (like exa → eza)

[Decodetalkers]

towel-lsp? Lol

[trevor-scheer]

Thoughts:

• tower- follows common convention within the tower ecosystem for naming, suggest we aim to preserve it.
• lsp has meaning, so altering that would make it a lot less clear and discoverable. Arguably the most important part IMO.
• 2s are confusing because of version numbers.

So…I’m not a fan of any of our suggestions so far. Perhaps something matchingtower-lsp-*? Not sure what to put there though.

[uncenter]

I'm a fan of tower-lsp2. Clearly a successor to the previous tower-lsp, though I can see the possible confusion with version numbers like you said.

[TilakMaddy]

It would be nice to have a sponsor so that this also doesn't end up like the original tower-lsp

[trevor-scheer]

@uncenter it is also my preference of the options so far.

Don't love but viable:
tower-rs-lsp
tower-lsp-community

[mrnossiom]

I agree with the points Trevor underlined earlier. And more than being confusing, I find the name tower-lsp2 unpleasant. About tower-rs-lsp, I find that crates names containing rs are bad. I thought about tower-lsp-community, but it sounds like a bundle of community extensions to tower lsp.

The option I prefer is tower-lsp2

[TilakMaddy]

I am not convinced we should try so hard to have tower in the name of the fork

[TilakMaddy]

There are literally 100s of projects that are built on forks of one another and we have no idea, and I don't think that's a bad thing so long as github commits are not stolen and re-commited from some other name.

[trevor-scheer]

I am not convinced we should try so hard to have tower in the name of the fork

@TilakMaddy I've provided a reason to keep it in the name, can you provide a reason not to? I'm open to the opinion if it's justified.

I'm most in favor of tower-lsp2 for lack of a "best" option and would be very ok with that.

[Decodetalkers]

I am also in favor of tower-lsp2, seems this choice is good enough. I hope this project can be started as soon as possible..

[mrnossiom]

What about tower-ls (or ls-tower 👀) for making language servers with tower?

EDIT: after a bit of thinking, ls fits language server implementations, but I'm unsure if it fits this project

[Decodetalkers]

yes, tower-ls is greate!, it is a good name I think, ls can also means lsp. so, it is good

[trevor-scheer]

I like tower-ls. It's technically correct, this is an implementation and not the protocol itself.

Colloquially, people tend to refer to language server implementations as LSPs which is fine. I tend to lean into that when I'm talking about them since it's well understood. But I am comfortable going with correctness here since it gives us a name we aren't sad about and actual language server devs who use this package will likely understand the nuance.