Talk:Phabricator/Diffusion/Callsign naming conventions/Existing repositories

Jump to navigation Jump to search


The accepted acronym for ContentTranslation is CX. (CT could be confused with category tree.)

A lot of extension names could be abbreviated, but I am mentioning this one in particular because it has quite a lot of packages already because of its modular services-based architecture and because its configuration is less trivial than of most other extensions.

So all or most repos that have CONTENTTRANSLATION in their callsigns can be changed to CX. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

These sound like good changes to me-- edit away! ^demon[omg plz] 18:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


INTEGRATION is long and shows up in a lot of repo names. CI is a common industry abbreviation for "continuous integration" and it's short! --BDavis (WMF) (talk) 23:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@BDavis (WMF): Yes Done Works for me. Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 11:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


Just makes sense to me. --BDavis (WMF) (talk) 23:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@BDavis (WMF): Yes Done Works for me. Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 11:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

OPSPUPPET vs. other OPS-Repos[edit]

Why OPSPUPPET, when every other operations-thing is now prefixed with OPS-? I would be for OPS-PUPPET for consistency reasons. --se4598 (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Because I didn't realize we were going to use dashes and had already done puppet. If OPS-* is the convention that's cool. ^demon[omg plz] 23:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Well now people have already started linking to it. Too late now :( ^demon[omg plz] 16:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
@^demon: Right now the damage will be slight; waiting will make it worse. Should we just change it now and fix the few existing uses? Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
We deleted it yesterday, just 2 comments to clean up later. Whatever this page settles on will be the name. ^demon[omg plz] 15:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


Established abbreviation of a quite common extension. But on the other hand I don't know if it would be inconsistent given not many other extensions are getting shorter ones. --Nikerabbit (talk) 09:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Nikerabbit: I think ULS is fine for this one, as it's so long and the short form is often used. Done. Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 17:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Defaut naming scheme for extensions and skins[edit]

I’m a bit afraid of using the callsign FOO for Extension:Foo and/or Skin:Foo because it doesn’t specify what is FOO (as a general rule, I understand that some heavily used extensions as VisualEditor have a custom callsign as VE). What about E-FOO for Extension:Foo and S-FOO for Skin:Foo ? Such a scheme would be consistent with OPS-* for operations/*, LABS-* for labs/*, CI-* for integration/*, etc. ~ Seb35 [^_^] 13:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

@Seb35: Seems plausible. What do you think Chad (WMF)? Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 19:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


Could we use PYWIKI or just PWB as the common prefix? John Vandenberg (talk) 02:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes please to PWB Legoktm (talk) 06:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Four-character approach[edit]

Phabricator/Diffusion/Callsign naming conventions/Existing repositories valhallasw --MZMcBride (talk) 02:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Everyone likes it. I've copied it here. ^demon[omg plz] 23:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC)