You really should look to other ecosystems and see what lessons they've learned. In java, packages are normally "namespaced" by the author's reverse domain name, like `org.lwjgl/lwjgl`.
Since clojure uses maven as well, the same applies, but clojure tools like leiningen decided to create a shortcut: if the group and artifact name are the same, like `iglu/iglu`, they can be collapsed into one name: `iglu`
Well, that just encouraged everyone to choose collapsible names. In retrospect, this didn't buy us much. Who cares about saving a few characters of typing? Most now seem to agree it wasn't a good idea.
When the "collapsed" name falls out of maintenance, the forks will all seem somehow less "official", even if they are much higher quality. Forks are inevitable; why would you want to discourage them?
I finally decided to start using the reverse of my personal domain for my future libraries. The java folks were right all along.
Since clojure uses maven as well, the same applies, but clojure tools like leiningen decided to create a shortcut: if the group and artifact name are the same, like `iglu/iglu`, they can be collapsed into one name: `iglu`
Well, that just encouraged everyone to choose collapsible names. In retrospect, this didn't buy us much. Who cares about saving a few characters of typing? Most now seem to agree it wasn't a good idea.
When the "collapsed" name falls out of maintenance, the forks will all seem somehow less "official", even if they are much higher quality. Forks are inevitable; why would you want to discourage them?
I finally decided to start using the reverse of my personal domain for my future libraries. The java folks were right all along.