You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
This is a necessary final step for #30 The Git repo naming convention dictated by Bazel for public rules is rules_technology, where technology for our case is Spring. So our repo should be rules_spring. (note the underscore not a hyphen).
Up until recently, our scope was just springboot, so the rename could be rules_springboot. But if we implement #93 (SpringNative) we cover more than just Spring Boot in Bazel. So naming our repo rules_spring seems to be the right long term move.
I have done some local testing using a test repo, and here is what I found when we rename this repo:
anyone using the old name over HTTP will get a 301 redirect to the repo with the new name
This is a necessary final step for #30 The Git repo naming convention dictated by Bazel for public rules is rules_technology, where technology for our case is Spring. So our repo should be rules_spring. (note the underscore not a hyphen).
Up until recently, our scope was just springboot, so the rename could be rules_springboot. But if we implement #93 (SpringNative) we cover more than just Spring Boot in Bazel. So naming our repo rules_spring seems to be the right long term move.
I have done some local testing using a test repo, and here is what I found when we rename this repo:
Therefore, the GitHub repo rename should be transparent to all builds and existing documentation links.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: