On 3 June 2014 09:19, Andrew Wilkins <andrew.wilk...@canonical.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 4:11 PM, roger peppe <rogpe...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On 2 June 2014 19:11, Nate Finch <nate.fi...@canonical.com> wrote: >> > (resending to the right thread) >> > >> > This may be a bit late... can we make the repo named juju? >> > >> > github.com/juju/juju >> > >> > The first Juju is the team, the second Juju is the project. Core is not >> > a >> > thing. This is pretty much standard operating procedure for big >> > projects on >> > github. Most are github.com/TEAM/PROJECT .... that way, when you're >> > looking >> > at the repos under github/juju you see: >> > >> > errgo >> > juju >> > loggo >> > >> > Core is not a thing, it's not the name of anything. Juju is the project >> > name. It happens to be the same as the team name, but lots of repos >> > have >> > that. >> > >> > If not just "juju", it should be juju-core. The repo name needs to be >> > able >> > to stand on its own. When someone forks it, they'll get >> > github.com/natefinch/core for example, which has no information about >> > what >> > the heck the repo is for. >> >> +1 > > > I'm moderately in favour of juju/juju, though > "github.com/juju/juju/cmd/juju" does not fill me with glee.
Neither github.com/juju/juju/juju :-) github.com/juju/juju-core/juju is slightly better. But perhaps it's better just to embrace relative names and go with "core" and renaming on fork. -- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
