I generally dislike renames unless we are going to get some tangible benefit out of it. Consistency is never something I really care that much about in repository names since no one is really using those on a daily basis and they aren't really used programmatically.
If we did do this rename would we be breaking all old hyper links to the repo? If so, I think I'd say I'm a -1. I also find it more confusing in projects where this has happened and the repository is retained for old links but the README just says, go to XXXX instead. All that said, I think iceberg-java is the right name of the java impl and the spec should probably be split into another repo. But that's what I would have done with perfect foresight before we got to the current state. So depending on the impact to existing links and references I'm between a -1 and +0. Things that would convince me to be a +1 Frequency of how often the single repository is confusing to folks, and does this affect them on a daily basis? Would we be able to route all requests to the old repository automatically to the new one? Would impacts on current developers be minimal? How many dev setups need to be changed for this to work? On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 10:21 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > Hi folks, > > I know it's not an easy one, but I would like to start this discussion :) > > We now have several repositories: > - iceberg-cpp > - iceberg-go > - iceberg-python > - iceberg-rust > > To be consistent, what about renaming iceberg to iceberg-java ? > > I know it's not only Java (it's also specs and site), but it would be > clearer, especially for contributors and the community. > > Thoughts ? > > Regards > JB >
