I have a hard time naming the samples GitHub repository of "Compose O'Clock". FYI, Compose O'Clock i...

# naming

[louiscad]

I have a hard time naming the samples GitHub repository of "Compose O'Clock".
FYI, Compose O'Clock is library to make Watch Faces for Wear OS using Compose Canvas and runtime.

Compose O'Clock itself is not open source (but it's free to use in debug apps), so the repo will be essentially a README and possibly a few other doc markdown files.

What would make the most sense to you?
1. Make a public repo named "ComposeOClock-samples", with samples AND the doc
2. The same, but named just "ComposeOClock"
3. Make a public repo named "ComposeOClock" that contains only the doc, AND another one named "ComposeOClock-samples" for the samples

[bod]

I voted #2 because I find it's the most 'keep it simple'

[louiscad]

Then I need to rename my code repo 😅 🙈

[louiscad]

What name will I fiiiiiiind 😅

[bod]

ComposeOClock-private

[louiscad]

Haha, thought about that

[louiscad]

Thought about ComposeOClock-sdk too

[louiscad]

Let's go with private, thank you!

[Ruckus]

I've seen the opposite pattern a few times (I.e. you leave your private one as ComposeOClock, and rename the new repo to ComposeOClock Public)

[bod]

yeah but this will be confusing when ComposeOClock is open sourced 😉

[Ruckus]

Not really, just include a deprecation comment in the old public one with a link

[bod]

sure, but that's not as simple as "the repo is the same, it's just that now it also contain the code of the sdk as well"

[LeoColman]

I voted 1 specifically to ensure that the name doesn't imply ComposeOClock is available (ie open source). I like the option private as well. When/if it becomes open source you'd have the name merging everything

[Ruckus]

@bod I would say that's a good thing. There's no reason to assume anyone who wanted to study the samples will suddenly want to build the entire project from source, but I could be wrong.

[Ruckus]

This of course assumed the repos would be merged. There is an argument to be made for keeping the samples separate even after a potential opening of the source. Perhaps not a good argument, but an argument none the less :)

[louiscad]

I think I'll stick to option 2 (KISS) for now, and I can always change it to option 3 one day if it's better suited to the future.