in our last discussion [1] our plan was this: > - name pattern for the git repository should be something like > "sling-<artifactId>" > - we drop the folder grouping from svn today in "extensions", "servlets", > "commons" etc. only the hierarchy of artifactId is relevant. > - with the prefix "sling-" they > - question: how are "contrib" and "samples" repos marked? by another prefix > like "sling-contrib-" and "sling-samples-"?
i'm in favor of using the artifactid because it's unique and easy to find. stefan [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/37765304556b17a04e7eb122afd895ea7beae957d56c9d4501a9f2e0@%3Cdev.sling.apache.org%3E >-----Original Message----- >From: Robert Munteanu [mailto:[email protected]] >Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 3:34 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: [git] Naming of git repositories > >Hi, > >I've started thinking a bit about the Git migration process. I don't >think we've discussed naming individual Sling modules after being >extracted from SVN. > >ASF mandates that we use a pattern of 'TLP-module' for the git >repositories, so the modules must be name sling-${something}. > >As for that ${something}, it can be one of > >1. artifactId / Bundle-SymbolicName >2. short name ( as currently used in the SVN repo ) > >I would favour option 2, as I think option 1 has too much redundancy: > > sling-org.apache.sling.auth.core > >is too verbose compared to > > sling-auth-core > > >Refining option #2, we should remove some commons prefixes, such as: > >- bundles >- contrib/bundles >- bundles/extensions >- contrib >- contrib/extensions >- karaf >- tooling/maven > >Thoughts? > >Robert
