Hi, Recently, the new added podlings, namely Amoro and Hertzbeat, have their GitHub repo in the names:
* https://github.com/apache/amoro * https://github.com/apache/hertzbeat ... which is different to the other 20+ podlings and 200+ repos [1] existing (this number counts retired ones and those for the Incubator PMC itself, but it's approximate). [1] https://github.com/orgs/apache/repositories?language=&q=incubator-&sort=&type=all My opinion is to agree that generally: 1. The incubator prefix comes from the SVN days where all podlings were under the incubator SVN tree. 2. Dropping the incubator- prefix for podling's GitHub repo can reduce some graduation tasks (although it's somewhat a milestone and ceremony for the podling, and INFRA does not find it a large job, as well as it won't break downstream almost due to redirections). 3. It's still significant to make it clear that a podling is in the incubating status and thus a DISCLAIMER to protect the ASF branding. With these premises, I started this thread with the following proposals and questions. 1. Establish a consensus to allow podling's GitHub repo to have a name without incubator- prefix. 2. Allow other podlings to ask the INFRA to drop their incubator- prefix by now, not MUST during the graduation. 3. Update the docs on incubator.apache.org everywhere if the description can conflict with this consensus. 4. However, find a way to clarify that a repo belongs to a podling. For 4, I'd propose to add the "incubating" words to each repo's README. This can be regarded as treating those READMEs a homepage for the repo and, 1. Name the project as "Apache Foo (Incubating)" in its first and most prominent uses, hopefully and H1 heading. 2. Add a footer including the Incubator logo and DISCLAIMER, like the current footer of Apache Answer (Incubating) [3] [3] https://answer.apache.org/ This method, however, can be a new chore for podlings that have many satellite repos that may previously claim their incubating status by naming the repos incubator-foo-satellite. But it's just another template to follow, so it won't be a big deal. Looking forward to your thoughts on this proposal and any suggestions to improve the implementation part. Best, tison.
