[PROPOSAL] Rename `flang-new` to `flang`

[tstellar]

@everythingfunctional

• What is your evaluation of the proposal? What positive or negative
  implications would accepting this have?

I think we should implement this proposal and rename flang-new to flang. I think it’s important that users are encouraged to use projects that we have deemed good enough to include in the top-level of the monorepo, and I think renaming the binary will do that.

I understand the argument against the rename and how this may impact users’ perception of the tool, but if we are actively trying to discourage users from using flang, then I would question why it’s even in the monorepo in the first place.

@everythingfunctional

• Do you have experience from other communities that relates to this
  issue and is important to consider?

I don’t think so.

@everythingfunctional

• How involved have you been in the LLVM project? Frequent contributor,
  occasional contributor, user of LLVM libraries, user of LLVM-based tools,
  or other?

I’ve been an active LLVM contributor for several years, and I lead a team that packages and distributes LLVM and most associated sub-projects (including flang) for Fedora Linux, and a smaller sub-set (not including flang) of sub-projects for Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

I’m also the LLVM Release Manager, and I have a great deal of interest in ensuring that we are releasing high-quality code in all of the LLVM sub-projects.

@everythingfunctional

• Self Evaluation: How much effort did you put into your review and how
  knowledgeable are you about this area? For example, a quick reading or an
  in-depth study?

I don’t have a lot of knowledge about flang’s internals, but I am one of the flang package maintainers in Fedora Linux. I have also read every comment on the Initial Discussion and Pitch Thread.