Hi Mikolaj
I thought of using names in format "stream-${name}-${stream}" (eg.
stream-scala-2.10), but I can use "${name}-${stream}" (scala-2.10) format too - consistency between modules is more important than maintainer personal preferences.
I just checked current modules' situation in f29 module repository. Maybe this list shows all the module or most modules in it. The result is here. https://pagure.io/jaruga-modules-branches
So, current package branch name patterns are
* "stream-${name}-${stream}": 2 (postgresql, varnish) * "${name}-${stream}": 1 (ruby (but not created yet)) * Both "${name}-${stream}" and "${stream}": 1 (kubernetes) * "${stream}": 11
Remarkable case is kubernetes module. 2 types of module stream names: 1.10, openshift-3.10 2 types of package branch names: 1.10, openshift-3.10 1.10 is maybe used like a kubernetes-1.10 branch.
There is no "${name}-${stream}" except ruby I thought I would create it.
As the examples of package branch names are defined explicitly referring http://calver.org/ . https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/modularity/making-modules/naming-guidel... In the point of consistency of "current" modules, it might be better to align with a kubernetes module's style.
That is * As a first branch name: "${stream}" * As a 2nd branch name: foo-${stream}
Jun