On Wed Nov 26 2014 at 7:27:20 AM Brad Jorsch (Anomie) <bjorsch(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 9:45 PM, James Forrester
<jforrester(a)wikimedia.org
wrote:
and in particular the plan for what we'll
call the existing repos
<
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Phabricator/Diffusion/
Callsign_naming_conventions/Existing_repositories
>
I can't find documentation anywhere for what's valid in callsigns besides
"uppercase", but seeing feature requests for stuff like "Allow digits in
callsigns" and "allow hyphens in callsigns" I'm suspecting the
character
set is literally [A-Z]. Which means a lot of the callsigns you have on that
page aren't even valid.
Gah, how did that slip through? I could've sworn...whatever, moving on.
Is the "repo name" column there supposed to
be meaning "rename
'mediawiki/extensions/AbuseFilter' to just 'AbuseFilter'"? If
that's the
case, then IMO the proposed naming is simply awful. We have so many
repositories that namespacing them is essential to make any sense out of
things without already knowing what is what. For example, what's "Donate"?
An extension for donations would be my guess. It's much clearer when it's
called "mediawiki/skins/Donate", then you know it's actually a skin. And
your own naming conventions page says that "Example" is a bad name, and yet
you're proposing renaming "mediawiki/skins/Example" to "Example"
and
"mediawiki/extensions/Examples" to "Examples"!
Those are bad examples and should have better names. But
repo names are just descriptive in Phabricator, they don't really
matter beyond display (hence the callsigns for linking). They
can have spaces too :)
They also don't affect cloning paths which is outside the scope
of what we're discussing here.
I think forcing every repo to be called Foo/Bar/Baz is ugly and
redundant for things that don't conflict. For things that do, just
describe them better. Call it "Example Extension" or somesuch.
From the link to
https://secure.phabricator.com/T4245
that was posted
elsewhere in this thread, it looks like this whole idea of "callsigns" is a
response to someone having a problem with resolving svn revision numbers on
the level of single-digit numbers of repositories. It doesn't seem to me
that it will scale AT ALL to the hundreds of repositories that we have, and
we're extremely likely to be running into problems that are far more
serious than the claimed problems from calling a repository "/core".
/core is a red herring and irrelevant to this discussion. Let's drop it.
If we can't -2 the whole idea of required
callsigns, it seems to me we'd be
better served by just treating them as random base-26 integers with no
inherent meaning.
I'm not opposed to that. It would make my life so much easier.
-Chad