On Friday 08 September 2017 16:48:24 Stefan Seifert wrote: > 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.
+1 for artifactId (with prefix sling if really required – we only have four maintained artifacts without sling) because it's a dead simple pattern (for automation also). O. > stefan > > [1] > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/37765304556b17a04e7eb122afd895ea7beae9 > 57d56c9d4501a9f2e0@%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 > >
