Closed fbolton closed 3 years ago
Thanks for raising this issue, @fbolton!
I completely agree - having a standard approach is good, and helps teams update and change them in the future should there be any need.
There have been a few meetings about tooling progress in the last few days as well, and there might be some details coming out of these talks that could help here, too. I'll check and see how things are and get back to the thread here.
This issue was resolved in https://github.com/redhat-documentation/modular-docs/pull/121 and the changes incorporated in the Reference Manual.
There has already been a comprehensive discussion about the pros and cons of using file name prefixes to indicate the module type (#25). But I would like to make a slightly different proposal. I would like to suggest the following guidance for using prefixes.
The background to this is that we currently have a situation where some projects do not use file name prefixes (which is fine and is what was agreed in #25) and some projects do use prefixes (which I understand is also an acceptable practice, according to #25). But for the projects that do use prefixes, I recently discovered that we are using different prefixes. For example, the Fuse documentation project is currently using the prefixes
p_
,c_
, andr_
, whereas OpenShift is usingproc_
,con_
, andref_
. For those projects that are using prefixes, it would be convenient (and less confusing) to agree on a standard set of prefixes, particularly when sharing content. This would not in any way affect those projects that do not use prefixes, who would be free to continue not using prefixes.