+1 pulpproj -0 pulpproject -0 pulp_platform -1 plp -1 pulp3 Also I'm +1 to having the top level namespace (the name above) contain the subnamespaces i.e. 'platform', 'common', 'streamer', and 'cli'. So that would be a 'yes' to [0].
[0]: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2444#Will-all-packages-install- under-a-top-level-directory-or-not Thanks for pushing this forward. On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 10:43 AM, David Davis <davidda...@redhat.com> wrote: > Agreed. +0 to pulpproj for me. > > > David > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Jeremy Audet <jau...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> > 2) pulp3 >> > - is ambiguous regardless of if the 3 is for Pulp3 or Python3. >> >> Yes. Also, using "pulp3" makes it easy for a naming conflict to occur >> with the existing PuLP <https://pypi.python.org/pypi/PuLP> package. What >> happens when their project also gets to version 3? Or when their project >> gets to version 4, and downstream packagers want to have a separate package >> for versions 4 and 3 of PuLP? One could say that this won't be an issue on >> account of the differing capitalization of the projects' names. But I don't >> think that capitalization is a good differentiator, as demonstrated by the >> NetworkManager project. >> >> And less importantly, using "pulp3" will force us to switch to "pulp4," >> "pulp5," etc as new major versions of Pulp come out. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pulp-dev mailing list >> Pulp-dev@redhat.com >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Pulp-dev mailing list > Pulp-dev@redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev > >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
