[hammerdr]

Maybe docker could use subcommands a la git.

So with docker-machine binary on the path, "docker machine" would just delegate to that.

Similarly, if I had a docker-flynn binary, "docker flynn" would just magically work.

This means that the main binary is composable from multiple parts and its easy to write plugins for other systems.

[tlrobinson]

I actually just suggested the git plumbing/porcelain model in another comment, which would fit nicely with this suggestion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8701085

[pekk]

Why not just "flynn"? Should I really be typing "docker" before every command for the sake of someone's branding?

[pferde]

Imagine if git, svn, cvs all installed their own "checkout", "clone", "commit", etc. executables. It would become chaos if you had more than one installed. I prefer when various software suites keep their executables in their own namespace, if only for sake of future-proofing, to prevent naming conflicts.

There are always symlinks and/or shell aliases if you want to override that locally.

[pekk]

That's nice, but it's irrelevant because there are not going to be many "flynn" executables.