Hi Mikolaj
I thought of using names in format
"stream-${name}-${stream}" (eg.
stream-scala-2.10), but I can use
"${name}-${stream}" (scala-2.10)
format too - consistency between modules is more important than
maintainer personal preferences.
I just checked current modules' situation in f29 module repository.
Maybe this list shows all the module or most modules in it.
The result is here.
https://pagure.io/jaruga-modules-branches
So, current package branch name patterns are
* "stream-${name}-${stream}": 2 (postgresql, varnish)
* "${name}-${stream}": 1 (ruby (but not created yet))
* Both "${name}-${stream}" and "${stream}": 1 (kubernetes)
* "${stream}": 11
Remarkable case is kubernetes module.
2 types of module stream names: 1.10, openshift-3.10
2 types of package branch names: 1.10, openshift-3.10
1.10 is maybe used like a kubernetes-1.10 branch.
There is no "${name}-${stream}" except ruby I thought I would create it.
As the examples of package branch names are defined explicitly
referring
http://calver.org/ .
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/modularity/making-modules/naming-gui...
In the point of consistency of "current" modules, it might be better
to align with a kubernetes module's style.
That is
* As a first branch name: "${stream}"
* As a 2nd branch name: foo-${stream}
Jun