I'd avoid the term ingest entirely — registerImages?

Your suggestion sounds like a big improvement. Nonetheless, I'll ask for even more: I think "ingestImages.py" is too ambiguous: it sounds as if images are being ingested to a database, or at least added to an existing collection of some kind. So I will request a clearer and less ambiguous name.

I suggest "makeRepoFromImages". It is rather long, but quite clear and unambiguous. If the operation is sufficiently rare then the long name will not hurt, and auto-completion will work once one types "makeRepo".

"repoFromImages" might do, but I miss the verb. I do not like "imagesToRepo" because it sounds as if it might be adding images to an existing repo.

I would like to avoid the word "ingest", except that's what it does. The IngestTask has multiple functions: parsing an image, putting it in the data repo, and registering it in the registry. Registering is only a part of what it does, so it doesn't seem appropriate to call the whole "registerImages". I was therefore thinking to qualify the kind of ingestion.

I saw Robert's suggestion after I posted mine. I agree that "registerImages" is better than "ingestImages" but I worry that it could easily be mistaken for warping.

How about ingestToRegistry.py and RegistryIngestTask?

If the bin script creates a new registry then I strongly feel the name should reflect that. ingestToRegistry implies adding images to an existing registry.

If the binary code is more flexible, then name it accordingly. It sounds to me as if potentially 3 things could happen in the library code:

• Create a new repository (which if done in place presumably just means adding a database and a bit of metadata to an existing dir)
• Copy images or create symlinks to images. If creating a new repo, presumably that is done "in place" and so this step is not done, but it would be wanted if adding images to an existing repo.
• Ingest data about the images to the repo db

Thank you all for your input.

The script creates a new registry if it is not present, but it does more. The registry really is an implementation detail of what I've been calling "data repositories", and what the script does is ingest images into the data repository. I therefore propose ingestToDataRepository.py. I think this captures the intent of all your suggestions.

I will move the end date slightly to allow for objections to this solid proposal.

Sorry, forgot to mention what was being ingested. New proposal: ingestImagesToDataRepository.py. Yeah, it's a bit long, but it's descriptive (and shell command completion is your friend).

It shall be ingestImagesToDataRepository.py.

We decided that with gen3 now existing and with the triggered ticket marked invalid, we will not be implementing this RFC.