Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Package.swift: make package name consistent with repo name #255

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 9, 2023

Conversation

MaxDesiatov
Copy link
Member

@MaxDesiatov MaxDesiatov commented Feb 28, 2023

Rest of SwiftPM packages provided by Apple follow a dash-case naming scheme consistent with repository name, usually
with swift- prefix. See attached screenshot:

Screenshot 2023-02-28 at 12 57 06

Rest of SwiftPM packages provided by Apple follow a dash-case naming scheme with `swift-` prefix.
@FranzBusch
Copy link
Member

Thanks @MaxDesiatov . We should definitely align this before we do a 1.0.0

@MaxDesiatov MaxDesiatov changed the title Package.swift: make package name consistent Package.swift: make package name consistent with repo name Feb 28, 2023
@twittemb
Copy link
Contributor

We should probably adapt the installation instructions in the README then.

@MaxDesiatov
Copy link
Member Author

The name of the package in README.md is already specified according to the convention, it was Package.swift that wasn't matching these instructions:

    .product(name: "AsyncAlgorithms", package: "swift-async-algorithms"),

@twittemb
Copy link
Contributor

The name of the package in README.md is already specified according to the convention, it was Package.swift that wasn't matching these instructions:

    .product(name: "AsyncAlgorithms", package: "swift-async-algorithms"),

yep sorry :-) my bad !

@FranzBusch FranzBusch merged commit e6b21d2 into main Mar 9, 2023
@FranzBusch FranzBusch deleted the maxd/consistent-package-name branch March 9, 2023 10:40
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants