"we’re looking at changing the Scala gitter rooms. well-intentioned newbies are very understandably always blundering into this room, so we want to make this the general room, and call the dev/contributors/internals rooms something else. I see Akka uses akka/dev, Play uses playframework/contributors, and sbt uses sbt-dev. we’re considered scala/scala/dev or scala/scala/internals or scala/dev or scala/internals. do y’all know if naming have any implications for integration as far as issue links, activity feed, etc?"
(wording changed slightly according to what room I was in)
@soc: i'd prefer scala/dev, considering that dev questions aren't always about scala/scala ... no idea on the second part
@lihaoyi: scala/internals has a nice symmetry with the mailing list
@som-snytt: The other possibility is symmetry with repos like wait, there's actually a scala-dev? Arguably, internals is an historical name b/c no longer really internal.
@retronym: Perhaps scala/guts? Inspired by GHC: https://downloads.haskell.org/~ghc/7.2.1/docs/html/libraries/ghc-7.2.1/src/HscTypes.html#ModGuts
@rkuhn: the one downside is that in order to mention issues and PRs you have to add the akka/akka prefix, otherwise I’m not aware of restrictions
@ktoso: yeah akka/dev works well for us the name btw originated from us having a akka-dev mailing list originally
@dwijnand: sbt uses sbt/sbt-dev, for exactly the same reason
@richdougherty: "contributors" is a bit long, but I think it's probably quite hard to get confused about what it's for so we don't have many people coming in here asking user-level questions
@dwijnand: I only just realised today that it's unprefix "contributors" because "playframework/contributors" is too long for the UI
@jroper: we chose contributors because contributors is more inclusive than dev/developers, since not everyone that contributes is necessarily doing coding (many contributors just update documentation, or triage issues, or provide help on the mailing list, or maintain a library) also as Rich said, dev/developers confuses a lot of people, they think “I’m a developer that uses Play, that must be for me" or “this is about development in Play, that must be for me" contributors is consistent with all our docs on getting involved and i think is becoming the “standard” way to refer to people involved in an open source project on the topic of integration, no, it has no impacts - all the integrations we have we’ve set up manually, so all activity from any playframework repo goes to our feed, we’ve also setup travis notifications for most of our repos in the same way
@SethTisue: on the NetLogo project, we have a netlogo-devel group, and newbies are constantly blundering onto it (instead of netlogo-users where they should be), so I can vouch for this "dev, I'm a dev, that means me!" thing as a real problem
@dwijnand: No implications as far as I know. One downside of sbt-dev is that's what the ML is called, so I would avoid scala-internals, so scala-internals remains an unambiguous reference to the ML
@eed3si9n: "contributors" is without the github org qualification, but I took the idea of branching off of sbt/sbt from them I think there's a slight implication in the naming of the channel if there is an existing community of people who hang out at the mailing list etc "sbt-dev" has stronger implication of ppl who commit code to the sbt itself.