On Tuesday 2018-12-04 11:57, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: >On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 11:50:46AM +0100, Arturo Borrero Gonzalez wrote: >> On 11/28/18 2:10 PM, Arturo Borrero Gonzalez wrote: >> > On 11/28/18 1:44 PM, Arturo Borrero Gonzalez wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> Now that the iptables.git repo offers arptables-nft and ebtables-nft, >> >> arptables.git holds arptables-legacy, etc, why we don't just rename the >> >> repos? >> >> >> >> * from arptables.git to arptables-legacy.git >> >> * from ebtables.git to ebtables-legacy.git >> > >> > please consider applying the attached patch. >> >> ping :-) > >Phil suggested no rename of the trees, I can update the description in >git.netfilter.org to place LEGACY there. Concern as you mentioned is >that it may break existing links/scripts. Not sure git support >redirections from old repo URI to new one... > >I think it's fine to apply a patch to add the "-legacy" postfix as we >do in iptables.
I think it is sufficient to do one action. Whoever builds the source will run into the name difference at some point (and that is all that is needed to raise awareness). Given git downloads usually do not count as build, the program name change seems more preferable to have than renaming the git repo. (But doing both is of course not too bad either.)
