Inconsistent BZR naming?

[Andrew Hunter]

Janne Jokitalo wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 03:02:34PM -0500, Cory K. wrote:
>> Looking through our BZR packages it looks like things are somewhat
>> inconsistent to me.
>>
>> These are the examples given in LP:
> <snip> 
>> I think I got the relevant ones.I just see little inconsistencies there.
>> Reasoning? Anything we can do to shape 'em up?
> 
> Basically, the reasoning is probably non-existent. 

It is up to the author of the branch. There are no guidelines as of 
current. It might be worth establishing a naming scheme, if only for our 
packages.

In any case, I would rather see all of the branches, attributed to their 
own projects, like ubuntustudio-controls, in LP. The main advantage to 
this is that the products can be linked to the packages in Ubuntu and 
allow our group members to triage bugs without having to be a member of 
Ubuntu QA.

And it doesn't make
> an effect to pretty much anything. It doesn't show a particular sign of
> professionalism, though, and that's why some consistency could be
> recommended. I could make a suggestion of having a package name for root
> and adding release name as a sub-directory. 

Bzr has the wonderful funtionality of a 'shared repo', in which disk 
space is saved between branches that share lots of information, like 
releases of an application. Sadly, this has not been implemented on LP 
as of yet.

Mind you, I don't have as
> much experience of using bzr+LP as other members of the team, so it
> might be totally dumb. :)
>