On 06/24/2016 03:07 PM, Michael Hrivnak wrote: > On naming, I have a slight preference toward keeping the pulp_ prefix > convention, but that might just be rooted in habit. My general feeling is > that the name of a git repo should stand on its own, and the fact that it > may be present on github within a particular user or organization's > namespace does not displace the value of the name itself being fully > descriptive. > > If I fork pulp/contrib, I end up with mhrivnak/contrib. Yes, the list of my > repos will show that is was forked from pulp/contrib, but it still seems > weird. I have to go to github to see that. If someone forked it from me, > now the original name's context is hard to find.
You can always rename your fork pulp_contrib if you really want to. > Even when I merely clone it, I'd get a local directory named "contrib". > Perhaps others already organize their local git clones by organization, but > I've always just had a flat directory of stuff that's been cloned from all > over, because the repo names are usually fully descriptive. I use directories to sort all the projects I contribute to and I guess I assumed everyone else did as well, but renaming your fork on GitHub also solves this problem for you, as does `git clone <url> <dir_name_of_your_choice>`. -- Jeremy Cline XMPP: [email protected] IRC: jcline
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Pulp-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list
