Chocolatey-coreteampackages: Potentially renaming the repository

[AdmiringWorm]

There have been talks of potentially renaming the repository to something other than chocolatey-coreteampackages repository.
The current name of chocolatey-coreteampackages sounds like it is part of chocolatey itself or one of the team members which is not the case.

The repository should be renamed to something else that reflects that the repository is completely maintained by the community and volunteers (hence the chocolatey-community organization), and not the Chocolatey organization or its team members.

One of the suggested changes is to change the name to one that is commonly used by other Chocolatey maintainers, and don't have the the coreteam in the name. i.e: chocolatey-packages.

Suggestions from other community members regarding both renaming the repository, and what it should be renamed to is appreciated.

[gep13]

@AdmiringWorm thanks for raising this issue. I think this makes a lot of sense, and provides some additional clarity around what this repository is, and what it isn't.

chocolatey-packages as the new name makes a lot of sense to me.

[majkinetor]

Definitely.

However, I don't like current suggestions, its just too ordinary and doesn't properly convey significance of this repository over other similar repositories - first few gallery pages are almost exclusively from this repository and chocolatey user has multiple millions downloads, so its clearly different from other users.

Also, about chocolatey user! It should also get renamed as it doesn't have anything to do with chocolatey as a company and is community effort.

I think chocolatey-community-packages and community user are logical and meaningful names.

[gep13]

@majkinetor the user that is used to push the packages from this repository is called chocolatey-community, which I think conveys exactly what is meant to, no?

[majkinetor]

Where is it called like that ? I only see chocolatey: https://community.chocolatey.org/profiles/chocolatey

[gep13]

That user only has three packages, the official packages published by Chocolatey. This is the user that has the packages from this repository:

https://community.chocolatey.org/profiles/chocolatey-community

[majkinetor]

OK, it must have been already renamed/changed then without me noticing it...

[gep13]

Regarding the repository name, chocolatey-community-packages makes sense to me, the reason I didn't suggest something like that was due to the repo already being in the chocolatey-community organisation. So the full path would be chocolatey-community/chocolatey-packages.

I am not against the suggestion, just seems that chocolatey-community/chocolatey-community-packages duplicates part of the name.

Thoughts?

[AdmiringWorm]

Definitely.

However, I don't like current suggestions, its just too ordinary and doesn't properly convey significance of this repository over other similar repositories - first few gallery pages are almost exclusively from this repository and chocolatey user has multiple millions downloads, so its clearly different from other users.

Also, about chocolatey user! It should also get renamed as it doesn't have anything to do with chocolatey as a company and is community effort.

I think chocolatey-community-packages and community user are logical and meaningful names.

It is supposed to be ordinary. What makes this repository different from other maintainer repositories is that multiple maintainers have access and can commit to the repository, and it aims to have high-quality packages (in other cases, it is more or less the same as other maintainer repositories).
Also, saying that the first few gallery pages are almost exclusively packages from this repository is just plain wrong. They have the majority, yes, but not even close to being almost exclusive. (around 27-28 packages are from the repository on the first two pages. Out of 60)

Also, having the name of the repository being chocolatey-community-packages is something I would be against on two counts.

1. The duplication of the word community as @gep13 mentioned
2. Higher likelihood of a user thinking this repository is the actual community repository and opening issues for other packages not hosted here (which we have already seen happen at times, and I believe will happen more frequently if changing it to that).

While yes, it will most likely cause users to open issues here regarding other packages if it gets renamed to chocolatey-packages, but I believe it will be less likely to happen due to it being a common name that multiple maintainers are using.
Not saying there isn't a better name, though.

[majkinetor]

If we talk about name duplication with parent namespace, then we should only go with packages as we already have chocolatey and community as words.

Also, saying that the first few gallery pages are almost exclusively packages from this repository is just plain wrong.

OK, let me be pedantic - half of the packages. Most downloads. Not the typical repository for sure either by number of packages or by downloads or by anything. Claiming its the same as anything else is just plain wrong and even unrespectful.

So how about just packages ?

[pauby]

chocolatey-packages gets my vote. It's a common name used for maintainers Chocolatey packages repositories.

I agree with @AdmiringWorm in that this repository is a normal repository. There are maintainers who maintain a similar number of packages as here and they are not treated any differently. Every maintainer is treated equally and with the same respect.

[pauby]

Since there's been no update here in the last 7 days, can we get agreement on the name change and the next steps on this?

[AdmiringWorm]

IMO, I believe we can go ahead with the name change to chocolatey-packages (since most agreed with this name).
I am not sure how it would affect open pull requests, so we might want to spend some time getting those pulled in or rejected first though (I plan to do that this weekend).