Yeah, I agree, I don't think the name juju necessarily will put people off. I'd use github.com/docker/loggo. Most people realize the first pathname after github.com is the user/group name, not a project name.
This is actually one place where github is a lot better than launchpad - the repo landing pages. If we write nice READMEs, it'll be clear that the top level stuff under github.com/juju is as reusable as anyone else's repos (except juju-core). On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 5:56 AM, William Reade <[email protected]>wrote: > On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 4:56 AM, Ian Booth <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> When I wrote the original email, I was thinking of something like >> "juju-team" as >> well, for the generic library projects (pending bikeshedding of >> "juju-team"). >> github.com/juju/... would still be used for all the Juju specific >> projects. >> > > I'm not sure we get much benefit from making this distinction. It's true > that someone just reading the juju source will not necessarily be aware > that loggo/errgo are independently viable; but whenever anyone sees them > actually used in an external project, it will be clear that they *are* > independent. Popularising those libraries in the first place is a separate > problem, and I'm not sure the precise github url is going to be a major > blocker there; and if it *is* -- if we hear people saying "I'd use loggo if > it weren't in the juju namespace" -- it'd be pretty easy to fix that, I > think. > > Cheers > William > > -- > Juju-dev mailing list > [email protected] > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev > >
-- Juju-dev mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
