It’s likely a topic that is brought up by the board once in a while for those projects.
On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 12:06, James Thomas <jthomas...@gmail.com> wrote: > I've discovered the Cordova project publishes all their project repos > without the `apache-` prefix. > https://www.npmjs.com/search?q=cordova > > Same goes for thrift (https://www.npmjs.com/package/thrift). I've > guess there's precedence that maybe this isn't an issue? > > On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 at 18:17, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Most or all of the Apache projects that are distributed on Homebrew > > <https://brew.sh/> are named apache-foo. > > > > ...except for `wsk` and `wskdeploy` which are curiously lacking > > `apache-` prefixes as well. ;) > > > > On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 at 12:08, Matt Rutkowski <mrutk...@us.ibm.com> > wrote: > > > > > > I too like the dash approach unless Apache likes having a domain name > > > style which implies (family) membership hierarchy. > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> > > > To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org > > > Date: 07/15/2019 12:05 PM > > > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Changing JavaScript SDK NPM Module Name: > > > openwhisk => apache-openwhisk? > > > > > > > > > > > > The name with the dash looks nicer, agreed. In migrating from an old > > > package name to a new one where you already have existing users, I > > > haven't seen a solution to that myself quite yet, though I know that > > > Groovy has a similar problem where their packages are still published > > > under the `org.codehaus.groovy` group id instead of > > > `org.apache.groovy`. While Maven and NPM are quite different, the > > > method of migrating a package name is similarly not well-defined in > > > both systems. > > > > > > Does anyone have more info about how NPM runs their repository? Maybe > > > they can add in some redirects of some sort. > > > > > > On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 at 11:11, James Thomas <jthomas...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > Reviewing the ASF guidelines on NPM packages to check our JS SDK > > > satifises > > > > all the rules[1] - we're supposed to be publishing the NPM package as > > > > "apacheopenwhisk" and not "openwhisk". This NPM library was > published at > > > ( > > > > > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.npmjs.com_package_openwhisk&d=DwIBaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=6zQLM7Gc0Sv1iwayKOKa4_SFxRIxS478q2gZlAJj4Zw&m=NilRlnhMriE1MNYQW3S_Ni47FW8uu-CTsXNbM3FYkH8&s=C-3wIDNjUO6k1tpWW7WQA9d4c-lbe7KshNS1jAR6jxM&e= > > > ) before the project was donated to > > > > Apache. > > > > > > > > Moving from the library to publish at `apache-openwhisk` rather than > > > > `openwhisk`[2] is not technically challenging (and the new package > name > > > is > > > > available) but will cause numerous issues.... > > > > > > > > I'm asking for comments on what to do about this. Would like to > engage > > > the > > > > ASF mentors for advice as well. What does the community think about > > > this? > > > > > > > > The library has significant usage (NPM tells me the library is > averaging > > > 6k > > > > downloads a week) using the existing package name. GitHub lists 38K > > > > references to the module. > > > > > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_search-3Fq-3Drequire-2528-2522openwhisk-2522-2529-26type-3DCode&d=DwIBaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=6zQLM7Gc0Sv1iwayKOKa4_SFxRIxS478q2gZlAJj4Zw&m=NilRlnhMriE1MNYQW3S_Ni47FW8uu-CTsXNbM3FYkH8&s=nIOIJxXhbd1TkXzWJVHx9-NAMQV4JuBsXbm1pEkX8u0&e= > > > > > > > > > > > All those external dependent projects, blog posts, documentation and > > > > tutorials, etc, that reference the library (and are outside of our > > > control) > > > > will be reliant on the old package name. These will still work (as > the > > > old > > > > library version will still be available from NPM) but never receive > new > > > > versions on installing the dependency. This may eventually mean the > old > > > > library doesn't work with future platform changes and/or lead to > > > security > > > > issues with outdated dependencies. > > > > > > > > I'm not sure if there's any leeway in the allowing the short-name for > > > the > > > > NPM library (given we follow all the other requirements)? This will > be a > > > > significant amount of work just changing all the references in > project > > > we > > > > control. > > > > > > > > If we do change the name - I'd assume `apache-openwhisk` is fine. > Using > > > > `apacheopenwhisk` is slightly horrid.... > > > > > > > > [1] - > > > > > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__cwiki.apache.org_confluence_pages_viewpage.action-3FpageId-3D109454613&d=DwIBaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=6zQLM7Gc0Sv1iwayKOKa4_SFxRIxS478q2gZlAJj4Zw&m=NilRlnhMriE1MNYQW3S_Ni47FW8uu-CTsXNbM3FYkH8&s=ZshMeW40IVmdVpBrfK3b_ERcnaA4Bh7h3iqXvO_NDCc&e= > > > > > > > [2] - following NPM JS module conventions - apache-openwhisk is much > > > > preferable than a single word (apacheopenwhisk). > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Regards, > > > > James Thomas > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> > > > > -- > Regards, > James Thomas > -- Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
