I recommend using publisher.hackname.release, where publisher is your Arc forum username.
For example, Linus Torvalds writes hardly a line of kernel code these days, he largely integrates the work of others. So there's a role for authors and a role for integrators.
Under my hack naming scheme, all the hacks you publish would be rntz.hackname.release. The hack may have one author or multiple authors, you may not be the author or may not be one of the authors.
"catdancer.exit-on-eof.1" is an exception, because it already has a name, and you're really just importing the hack into git, rather than doing your own integration. (If, however, you changed it to get it to work with Anarki, then you'd use "rntz.exit-on-eof.0").
The reason for using the publisher in the hack name is to make it globally unique. For example, you and I may both happen to port "arcsh" to arc3. For people who aren't using git, it's useful to be able to refer to hacks and download them by a unique name. By using "rntz.arcsh.0" and "catdancer.arcsh.0" there's no conflict. It should be understood that the presence of the publisher's username "catdancer" or "rntz" in the name does not imply authorship.
Should there be a periodical (i.e. once/twice a month) effort to merge together various publishings of the same hack? I think it's important to do that, so that we don't have five differently-named but almost identical versions of a hack floating around after a few people add features. A list of contributers to a hack/library can be kept as commented "meta-data" within the file, and the hack can then be renamed to anarki.hackname.release.
However, I will point out that the name of the project/community is "Anarki", and so it is very likely to be distributed and each person will probably want their own version anyway.
Just like Linus Torvalds decided he wanted to be the Linux integrator, someone will emerge who wants to put together the best version of various variations of various hacks. If he or she does a good job, he or she will become respected and people will look first to him or her to find a version of a hack they want to use.
Information about a hack, like "this hack is the best of the bunch", is really best not put into the hack name, because later if the information changes (maybe you find out the hack has a bug), now you have a name that's giving bad information.
