No we can't not. -Chad
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014, 9:11 PM MZMcBride <[email protected]> wrote: > James Forrester wrote: > >We need to agree how we are going to name our repos, and much more > >importantly because it can't change, what their "callsign" is. These will > >be at the heart of e-mails, IRC notifications and git logs for a long > >time, so it's important to get this right rather than regret it after the > >fact. > > > >A handful of repos are so important and high-profile that we can use an > >acronym without too much worry, like "MW" for MediaWiki or "VE" for > >VisualEditor. For the rest, we need to make sure we've got a good enough > >name that won't cause inconveniences or confusion, and doesn't repeat the > >mistakes we've identified over time. We've learnt since the SVN to git > >migration a few years ago that calling your repository "/core" is a bad > >plan, for instance. > > Could we not? > > JIRA does this prefixing with tickets and I don't really understand its > purpose. We already have Git hashes and positive integers. Is another > scheme really needed? And what was wrong with the repository names again? > > I was pleased that Maniphest simply uses T as a prefix. I'm kind of bummed > out that Diffusion is introducing shouting obscure immutable abbreviations. > > MZMcBride > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
