I think that is a bit sad. Not tearing of cloths or gnashing of teeth sad. Maybe stare whistfully into the sunset and think of what could have been bad.
I'd prefer not to have them but I ultimately don't care that much. It does provide a fun bikeshedding opportunity I guess.
Nik On Nov 26, 2014 12:52 AM, "Chad" innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
No we can't not.
-Chad
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014, 9:11 PM MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com 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 Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l