In a large shared git organisation such as in a large company or any multi-tenant organisation with prefixes separating one set of repos from another (along with group/team access permissions) the prefix is configured in branchout and is already stripped from repo names when using them to define which group folder to be placed into and indeed what to name that folder, and there are existing tests that cover that.
In other parts of some related systems the prefix is also stripped and ditto inside the pom.xml of Java projects it's not used in the artifactId, either.
So my assertion is that it would be cleaner and result in shorter more meaningful paths to have something like this:
~/projects/projectName/groupName/naturalName
Rather than the status quo which is something like this:
which as you can see, quickly gets unwieldy in the real world.
I understand that some people would prefer to keep the directory matching the physical repo name rather than the project name, and that this is the status quo, and that therefore this change should be implemented as an optional and opt-in behaviour that leaves current behaviour intact unless explicitly configured.
In a large shared git organisation such as in a large company or any multi-tenant organisation with prefixes separating one set of repos from another (along with group/team access permissions) the prefix is configured in branchout and is already stripped from repo names when using them to define which group folder to be placed into and indeed what to name that folder, and there are existing tests that cover that.
In other parts of some related systems the prefix is also stripped and ditto inside the pom.xml of Java projects it's not used in the artifactId, either.
So my assertion is that it would be cleaner and result in shorter more meaningful paths to have something like this:
~/projects/projectName/groupName/naturalNameRather than the status quo which is something like this:
~/projects/projectName/groupName/companyName-divisionName-projectName-groupName-naturalNamewhich as you can see, quickly gets unwieldy in the real world.
I understand that some people would prefer to keep the directory matching the physical repo name rather than the project name, and that this is the status quo, and that therefore this change should be implemented as an optional and opt-in behaviour that leaves current behaviour intact unless explicitly configured.