fedora-ruby makes perfect sense to me. Although some might be tempted to use the name fedora-ruby-sig, the "sig" acronym is not widely understood in my experience.


On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 11:50 PM, Josef Stribny <jstribny@redhat.com> wrote:
As I said before, I would welcome the common namespace. I believe it's a good opportunity to promote Fedora Ruby SIG and our contributions. As for the name, I don't see a problem with 'fedora-ruby'.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Achilleas Pipinellis" <axilleaspi@ymail.com>
To: "Ruby SIG mailing list" <ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 5:28:44 PM
Subject: Github common namespace for Fedora Ruby projects

I had raised this issue [0] some time ago, but it deserves its own
discussion with the rest of the Fedora Ruby community. So, here it is.

Some already raised points:

1) We should decide on the namespace. For that concern I have already
taken 'fedora-ruby' and 'fedoraruby' if we decide on either of these.
Since I'm currently the creator I get ownership to all projects under
this namespace. For that matter I can drop the name and then one of you,
Vit or Mo or whoever, can register the namespace again to get full

2) Owners/collaborators of the transfered projects must retain their
rights. Github doesn't offer much diversity with user rights
unfortunately but we'll figure it out.

Projects that could share the namespace:

1. gem2rpm [1]
2. rubypick [2]
3. pkgwat [3]
4. gem-compare [4]
5. isitfedoraruby [5][6]

So, what do you think?


[0] https://github.com/zuhao/isitfedoraruby/issues/50
[1] https://github.com/lutter/gem2rpm
[2] https://github.com/bkabrda/rubypick
[3] https://github.com/daviddavis/pkgwat
[4] https://github.com/strzibny/gem-compare
[5] https://github.com/zuhao/isitfedoraruby
[6] https://github.com/axilleas/isitfedoraruby

FAS : axilleas
GPG : 0xABF99BE5
Blog: http://axilleas.me
ruby-sig mailing list
ruby-sig mailing list

Dan Allen | http://google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen