Hi Mikolaj

> I thought of using names in format "stream-${name}-${stream}" (eg.
stream-scala-2.10), but I can use "${name}-${stream}" (scala-2.10)
format too - consistency between modules is more important than
maintainer personal preferences.

I just checked current modules' situation in f29 module repository.
Maybe this list shows all the module or most modules in it.
The result is here.
https://pagure.io/jaruga-modules-branches

So, current package branch name patterns are

* "stream-${name}-${stream}": 2 (postgresql, varnish)
* "${name}-${stream}": 1 (ruby (but not created yet))
* Both "${name}-${stream}" and "${stream}": 1 (kubernetes)
* "${stream}": 11

Remarkable case is kubernetes module.
2 types of module stream names: 1.10, openshift-3.10
2 types of package branch names: 1.10, openshift-3.10
1.10 is maybe used like a kubernetes-1.10 branch.

There is no "${name}-${stream}" except ruby I thought I would create it.

As the examples of package branch names are defined explicitly
referring http://calver.org/ .
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/modularity/making-modules/naming-guidelines/#_package_branch_name
In the point of consistency of "current" modules, it might be better
to align with a kubernetes module's style.

That is
* As a first branch name: "${stream}"
* As a 2nd branch name: foo-${stream}

Jun
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Reply via email to