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