Change name of MUSE2 before first release

[alexdewar]

Changing the project's name

I've been thinking about this for a while and I'm not sure about the name "MUSE2" for this project for a few reasons. Changing the project name isn't particularly difficult BUT if we're going to do so, it would be best to do it BEFORE we make a release. Releases are essentially archives and it makes things messy and confusing if you have a mix of names in the project's history (though we have renamed projects previously, so it is possible, just not ideal). If you rename a GitHub repo, the old URLs will automatically redirect to the new ones, so we don't have to worry about link rot.

I'll explain my thinking below. The plan is to make a release in the next week (:partying_face:), so ideally we need to come to a conclusion soon so that we can revise the name before the first release, if that's what we decide to do.

Reasons to change the name

1. The name makes it sound like it's a new major release of the old MUSE, which is misleading (it's a different tool with a different model at its heart) and does the new program a bit of a disservice (there's no shared code and we should be trumpeting the fact that it's all new!).
2. The fact that we're sharing (part of) a name with the old tool makes it difficult to come up with a sensible versioning scheme. We'd normally use semantic versioning and by that logic, the first release of MUSE2 should be v0.1.0 or something, but in order to avoid confusion with an old version of the old MUSE, we'll probably need to make this first release v2.0.0, which both implies that there was a v1 of this tool and that it is more mature than it is (it's conventional to stick to a v0 series until you consider that your software is suitable for general release)
3. (Less importantly) the acronym doesn't describe the software particularly well, in that it's not especially "modular" in the software engineering sense. It will be a flexible tool, but there's currently no plan to have a plugin system or something, which is what I'd assume for a modular piece of software (I'm not saying that's a good idea, incidentally! Sometimes simple and opinionated is the way to go)

Reasons to keep the name

1. There is already a community of MUSE1 users and keeping continuity with the name could be a kind of marketing for the new tool
2. There are some commonalities in functionality between the two tools that distinguish them both from other modelling systems (even if there isn't shared code)
3. I can imagine there could be some kind of funding implications if you wanted to apply for funding for a "MUSE project" that involves development on both... not sure

Suggestions

I guess if we wanted a new name, it might make sense to flag something unique about this model/program in the name somehow. I'm not sure about what distinguishes the MUSE2 model from other similar models, but it will likely stand out from a performance perspective (especially compared to Python-based tools), so we could name it something like:

• Fast Energy Systems Simulator: FESS

That's my (somewhat lame) contribution. I was also thinking maybe we could go with a name based on one of the Greek muses for a kind of continuity (all academic software has to have a name that's either Greek or a contrived acronym), but couldn't think of an acronym for "Clio" (let alone "Euterpe").

Any other suggestions welcome!

(Or we can leave it as is.)

Any ideas @ahawkes @tsmbland @dalonsoa?

[alexdewar]

I've thought about something else on this topic... we do use the name "MUSE 2.0" all over the place, including in the repo name. I think we should call the software "MUSE2" instead, so as to avoid confusion when we make subsequent releases (we'll make a v2.1.0 release in the next engagement and they'll be fairly regular after that). We don't want users thinking they're using v2.0.0 (the first release) when they're not. And we don't want people to be trying to repeat published results that were produced with e.g. v2.5.0 using v2.0.0 because a paper says it was produced with "MUSE 2.0".

I suggest we rename to MUSE2, including in the repo name (GitHub will handle the redirects automatically so it shouldn't break anything).

Are we happy with this as a plan? @ahawkes?

[ahawkes]

Yes, I'm happy with MUSE2 - thanks,

…

________________________________ From: Alex Dewar ***@***.***> Sent: 09 October 2025 09:56 To: EnergySystemsModellingLab/MUSE_2.0 ***@***.***> Cc: Hawkes, Adam D ***@***.***>; Mention ***@***.***> Subject: Re: [EnergySystemsModellingLab/MUSE_2.0] Change name of MUSE2 before first release (Discussion #793) I've thought about something else on this topic... we do use the name "MUSE 2.0" all over the place, including in the repo name. I think we should call the software "MUSE2" instead, so as to avoid confusion when we make subsequent releases (we'll make a v2.1.0 release in the next engagement and they'll be fairly regular after that). We don't want users thinking they're using v2.0.0 (the first release) when they're not. And we don't want people to be trying to repeat published results that were produced with e.g. v2.5.0 using v2.0.0 because a paper says it was produced with "MUSE 2.0". I suggest we rename to MUSE2, including in the repo name (GitHub will handle the redirects automatically so it shouldn't break anything). Are we happy with this as a plan? @ahawkes<https://github.com/ahawkes>? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#793 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AC37JLMLYRLLLW4C36HGVZL3WYPM5AVCNFSM6AAAAACFEIV5OGVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43URDJONRXK43TNFXW4Q3PNVWWK3TUHMYTINRTGQ3TAMA>. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[alexdewar]

The name's been changed to MUSE2 now. We decided against changing it to something else, so I'll close this discussion.