rspec-puppet renaming #89
Replies: 6 comments 5 replies
-
|
The standard for all plugins to rspec is for the gem to be |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
The Perhaps a weird suggestion, but is |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
FWIW, here's a random example of that pattern used with another popular gem https://github.com/ManageIQ/rbvmomi2 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Linking Genes comment #89 (comment) I would agree that a 2 can make it seemed versioned as opposed to essentially forked in this case. The original thought had been puppetlabs-rspec-puppet which felt unnecessarily long and that keeping puppetlabs first kept our gem naming consistent. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I'd go with |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Regarding ownership, I addressed that in puppetlabs/puppet-lint#173 (reply in thread) and it seems relevant here too. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Just to give the summary the quick summary it is a social thing and its therefore not transferrable. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
The issue with a number is it could easily be mistaken as one correlating to the puppet version number.
…On Fri, Oct 27, 2023, at 8:01 AM, Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden wrote:
The `rspec-<plugin>` naming is very common to identify it's an rspec plugin. There is beaker-rspec <https://github.com/voxpupuli/beaker-rspec> and you could argue that it should be `rspec-beaker` instead. I'd prefer to keep the `rspec-` prefix.
Perhaps a weird suggestion, but is `rspec-puppet2` an option?
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#89 (reply in thread)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAHMBBKJ4MOGZUVGVS7UDMDYBOPDPAVCNFSM6AAAAAA6SPLR7KVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43SRDJONRXK43TNFXW4Q3PNVWWK3TUHM3TIMBTGA3TQ>.
You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: ***@***.***>
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
So I want to summarize the points taken on each of the discussions and our future actions. We are aware this change is frustrating for everyone and these sort of rename changes have risks but this wasn't a project we could transfer or where there was an active partnership we could make to justify the joint ownership. We are using the puppetlabs- approach since that maintains some level of consistency with the forge. We appreciate quite a few rspec gems follow an rspec- approach but there are a number which don't and we consider it to be better to maintain consistent naming over the tools. We believe renaming the binary is the right thing to do to avoid potential clashes and the confusion of having an old and new gem but with the same binary name. Although we are aware historically binaries were more likely to use puppet with this generally masked by use of the pdk and rake this should hopefully be a minimal disruption and inconsistency We are aware we could have started these discussions earlier and have updated our ticket grooming process to reflect that. We will also be raising PRs into dependencies to try and reduce work for the community making the change. I appreciate not everyone will be entirely happy with the naming outcome and potential disruption but we hope applying a consistent approach will reduce disruption in future. I really appreciate everys input on this to help us see all available options. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Reopening As per discussion in Puppet-lint @gavindidrichsen @jordanbreen28 and co have been doing a hack day today to test the idea discussed on the vox meeting of releasing a gem in github and packing that in PDK so that we can maintain a secure pipeline for PDK packaging while at the same time still publishing to rubygems with the understanding of the ownership there. We will come back with findings of hack day and confirm direction |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
The rspec-puppet gem published in https://rubygems.org/gems/rspec-puppet currently has shared ownership with the original author. To ensure good contribution and maintenance standards we would propose republishing this gem into a new namespace.
Following initial discussions we did for puppet-lint puppetlabs/puppet-lint#158 we found issues with namespace clashes following an initial renaming to https://rubygems.org/gems/puppetlabs-puppet-lint which was investigated in puppetlabs/puppet-lint#170
I am therefore opening this issue to discuss this need fully and address any community concerns before proceeding.
So with that I'd like to lay out what were suggesting now and make sure we aren't missing anything further.
To avoid a clash anywhere, gem, namespace etc and to drive consistency of repos we are planning to rename the gem, the binary and the repo to follow puppetlabs- , we thought dropping the "puppet" part to avoid a long name and keep consistency with the forge and associations of puppetlabs with puppet inc and puppet with the community.
Our current proposal would be to rename accross binary, repo and gem as follows
Repo rename: puppetlabs-rspec
Binary name: puppetlabs-rspec
Gem rename: puppetlabs-rspec
Thoughts? Concerns? Feedback?
See related discussion puppetlabs/puppet-lint#173
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions