-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 33
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Naming Convention for the Repositories #41
Comments
Set a meaningful name:
|
@gmajan @Tlazypanda this issue becomes a high priority due to creating more on the new repo nowadays. May I have your comment on the proposal, please? |
@Patamap When the title contains a dot (.) it is like a / in a regular file name: i.e. it is a different sub-division. Between the dots, the words are separated by underscores. |
@gmajan thanks for your feedback. It is ok to have . and - as we agreed to choose what we want to have it together. |
UPDATE: We ran through this name conversational together in a call yesterday.
NEXT These rules will be written in the github workflow and if anyone has the question or propose, a new issue can be raised for discussion. |
@all-contributors please add @jenkatesmits for data |
I couldn't determine any contributions to add, did you specify any contributions? |
@all-contributors please add @jenkatesmits for data |
I couldn't determine any contributions to add, did you specify any contributions? |
@all-contributors please add @jenkatesmits for documentation |
I've put up a pull request to add @jenkatesmits! 🎉 |
What does the current documentation state?
We are using an unwritten naming convention for the repositories. As far as I know, we use . to indicate a sort of sub-directory and _ to connect words of 1 title.
The top directory indicates the initiative the directory is under: e.g. GSoC so people know that adding to these repos might interfere with deliverables.
If there is no initiative, then the repo is operational and thus open.
The second layer is the tool the repo is under. FLINT for most repos but not all.
Next is the name of the repo
If this is indeed how we work, it would be good to document this and make sure the existing names are in line.
Where is this stated?
Nowhere yet
Why do you want to improve the statement?
If we have a clear naming system, contributors feel at ease to make new repos and they can quickly understand what repos are for.
Proposed statement
Follow an agreed naming system
Additional info
None
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: