Rename the repo?

[earth2marsh]

This repo is currently called aep-dev, which suggests to me that it is for the aep.dev website. However, the website is actually delivered with the site-generator/site-generator-beta named repos.

We could rename aep.dev to be aeps or spec or a combination like aep-spec.

Thoughts?

[toumorokoshi]

I could go either way on this one - but I do agree that we don't have great repo naming or organization. There's also https://github.com/aep-dev/aep, which are commonly used types.

I'd vote for aep.dev/aeps - because they may not be just the spec.

[toumorokoshi]

@earth2marsh can you do an audit of all of our repos and make sure that they're named appropriately? then we can add something to the site that explains the structure.

[earth2marsh]

Here we go:

• aep -> aep-types, since it collects common types using in AEPs
• aeps -> aep-schema, to focus on the AEP schema
• aep.dev -> aeps, since this repo collects all of the enhancement proposals, shift to emphasize the AEPs rather than focus on the domain (managed by the site-generator)
• aepc no change
• site-generator -> site-generator-orig, and then archive?
• site-generator-beta -> site-generator, since it has been promoted!
• terraform-provider-openapi, keep as is
• api-linter -> proto-linter, to better focus on the fact that it only works with proto

[toumorokoshi]

CC @rofrankel @rambleraptor. I agree on renaming aep, but richard might have a concern because he has a buf pipeline in there already. That said we should just be able to rename them, right?

terraform-provider-openapi, keep as is

I'd like to rename that to be aeptf, to follow the structure of aepc and aepcli. WDYT? By that naming convention, we may want to rename linters to something like aeplint, but I'm less opinionated on that one.

[toumorokoshi]

Regardless I support make this change - we're still pretty early in the project so this change won't be super disruptive - would rather re-align now. Thank you for bringing it up!

[earth2marsh]

When I have renamed repos in the past, GitHub seems to be pretty smart about redirecting, though I'm not sure that a pipeline client would be clever enough to follow one?

As for aeptf, I don't know that I would have grokked tf as meaning terraform, whereas I better understand the c and cli signals. We might consider introducing a dash separator, so aepc -> aep-c and aep-cli and aep-terraform?

[rofrankel]

Marsh's proposal SGTM. I didn't name aep, @Alfus did, and I probably would have named it something more like aep-type or aep-common-components.

(Why aep-common-components? Because types like aep.type.Money are a subset of the common components, which also include things like aep.longrunning.Operation.)

[toumorokoshi]

sounds good! let's do a spot check in the weekly sync, then move forward.

[toumorokoshi]

We might consider introducing a dash separator, so aepc -> aep-c and aep-cli and aep-terraform?

Actually thinking about this a bit more - I'd prefer to leave aepc and aepcli alone. Primarily because they're command line tools, and it's quite annoying to have to type the extra - (using a pinky or right index finger, far way from the home row).

Also aepc follows protoc in naming convention, gcc, rustc - It's basically a compiler.

[rambleraptor]

LGTM all around.

I don't have strong feelings on any of these names. I personally like "aepcli" and "aeptf"