Clarity between Dojo 1.x and 2.x packages

[dylans]

• Review all dojo packages to verify that they state clearly if they are part of Dojo 1.x or 2.0+
• Update org description to be clear about 2.0+ vs. 1.x
• Update URL in org to dojo.io (verify we're ready for that)
• Do something about dojo/dojo2 package as that is completely confusing now (would require updates to Intern and perhaps others)

[rishson]

Re: dojo/dojo2:

• Update README, repo tags and repo description
• make sure that intern can move off this package
• unpublish
• rename repo
• change all references to gitter, e.g. README on dojo/meta to point to dojo org room rather than the dojo2 repo room.

[rishson]

I plan on changing all the repo descriptions for dojo1 repos to:

Dojo 1 - xx

e.g.

for dojo/dojo:

Dojo 1 - the Dojo toolkit core library.

For dojo 2 repos, I plan on ensuring all the repo desciptions are in the form:

🚀 Dojo 2 - xx

e.g. for dojo/widgets

🚀 Dojo 2 - UI components

[agubler]

Just to note that with the loaderless-intern work that Jason has been doing, intern has already moved away from the dojo package published from dojo/dojo2.

https://github.com/theintern/intern/blob/loaderless-intern/package.json

[rishson]

@dylans can you 👍 or 👎 the comment above about the repo descriptions before I go through and change pls?

[dylans]

Just to note that with the loaderless-intern work that Jason has been doing, intern has already moved away from the dojo package published from dojo/dojo2.

Yes, the challenge is all of the versions of Intern 2.x and 3.x that will break if the repo is just going. So we probably need to go back and publish a version of every Intern 2.x and 3.x with a dependency on whatever the new name is.

Also as Kit pointed out, we may still need a repo call dojo2 to not break our current single gitter channel for Dojo 2.

[agubler]

@dylan does it require the GitHub repo?

[agubler]

And for the Gitter stuff, meta should probably be dojo2....

[dylans]

@dylan does it require the GitHub repo?

it can probably just require the npm tag, we'll need to verify with @jason0x43

And for the Gitter stuff, meta should probably be dojo2

Probably, but meta is such a fun self-troll over meta problems.

[agubler]

Yup I can't see a reason why it would need the repo. As the dependency is actually dojo but published from dojo/dojo2 repo on the 2.0.0-Alpha.* versions

[agubler]

I'm not sure what harm the repo is actually causing? It doesn't show up on an npm package search (grunt-dojo2 is actually the first result for dojo2) and it displays a big deprecated warning on the result returned from google.

[dylans]

Because it makes it look like Dojo 2 is deprecated (for people that are tl;dr)

[agubler]

Agreed. In that case my previous comment still stands that we don't need the repo for intern.

[dylans]

Agreed. In that case my previous comment still stands that we don't need the repo for intern.

I assume any incremental bug fix releases to old versions of Intern can continue to rely on the already published version. If that's the case, then yes, I agree, though it should still live somewhere in case someone needs it for something later (hopefully never).

[agubler]

We could just rename the repo as it has no bearing on the actual package it publishes to npm 😄 Maybe dojo-intern

[rishson]

OK - so I think gitter should just move to our org dojo (you can have org rooms as well as repo rooms).
I think we should rename dojo/dojo2 to dojo/dojo-intern and mark as '(internal use)'.

I have been through all repos and done the following:

• All descriptions start with 'Dojo 1 -' or '🚀 Dojo 2 -' (internal use repos don't get the nice rocket tho)
• All deprecated repos now have 'deprecated' tag
• All 'proposed' repos now have 'proposed' tag
• All 'internal use' repose now have this suffix in their description.

[dylans]

Ok, because npm just pulls in data from the readme and package.json, we may want to make changes there as well for the repos? I noticed the dojo/loader readme also uses dojo2 rather than Dojo 2. Also after 2.0 is released, we should probably change to 2+.

Moving gitter to the org seems fine to me.

[rishson]

Refs #166

[kitsonk]

That other actions are their for this. It is unclear. If there are other actions, maybe we should close this and break them out as separate issues?

[kitsonk]

No feedback for 3 months, closing. Any actions should be open as new issues.