James Forrester wrote: >We need to agree how we are going to name our repos, and much more >importantly because it can't change, what their "callsign" is. These will >be at the heart of e-mails, IRC notifications and git logs for a long >time, so it's important to get this right rather than regret it after the >fact. > >A handful of repos are so important and high-profile that we can use an >acronym without too much worry, like "MW" for MediaWiki or "VE" for >VisualEditor. For the rest, we need to make sure we've got a good enough >name that won't cause inconveniences or confusion, and doesn't repeat the >mistakes we've identified over time. We've learnt since the SVN to git >migration a few years ago that calling your repository "/core" is a bad >plan, for instance.
Could we not? JIRA does this prefixing with tickets and I don't really understand its purpose. We already have Git hashes and positive integers. Is another scheme really needed? And what was wrong with the repository names again? I was pleased that Maniphest simply uses T as a prefix. I'm kind of bummed out that Diffusion is introducing shouting obscure immutable abbreviations. MZMcBride _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
