at 12:08, Matt Rutkowski
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I too like the dash approach unless Apache likes having a domain name
> > > > style which implies (family) membership hierarchy.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Fr
ch unless Apache likes having a domain name
> > > style which implies (family) membership hierarchy.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Matt Sicker
> > > To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org
> > > Date: 07/15/2019 12:05 PM
> > &
tt Rutkowski wrote:
> >
> > I too like the dash approach unless Apache likes having a domain name
> > style which implies (family) membership hierarchy.
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Matt Sicker
> > To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org
> > Date: 07/15
roach unless Apache likes having a domain name
> style which implies (family) membership hierarchy.
>
>
>
> From: Matt Sicker
> To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org
> Date: 07/15/2019 12:05 PM
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Changing JavaScript SDK NPM Module N
I too like the dash approach unless Apache likes having a domain name
style which implies (family) membership hierarchy.
From: Matt Sicker
To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org
Date: 07/15/2019 12:05 PM
Subject:[EXTERNAL] Re: Changing JavaScript SDK NPM Module Name:
openwhisk
Reviewing the ASF guidelines on NPM packages to check our JS SDK satifises
all the rules[1] - we're supposed to be publishing the NPM package as
"apacheopenwhisk" and not "openwhisk". This NPM library was published at (
https://www.npmjs.com/package/openwhisk) before the project was donated to
