Release on opam as ppx_graphql

[wokalski]

As discussed on Discord, @Andreas might be willing to "donate" the name on opam. If he likes the project and decides to do so, I believe it'd be great to release it there. Depending on resolutions is less than ideal.

[andreas]

Thanks for suggesting this, @wokalski. I'd be happy to see this project on OPAM under the ppx_graphql name 😄

[Zimmi48]

@wokalski @andreas But why? The project is called graphql_ppx. Even if it's not conventional, there's no reason to want to use a different name on opam. Unless you wish to rename it everywhere.

[wokalski]

I'd personally like consistent naming everywhere @Zimmi48. I think @jfrolich or other contributors will resolve this issue as they see fitting. I just want it published to opam and I want it to be obvious for opam users what's the go to ppx.

[Zimmi48]

@wokalski graphql_ppx and ppx_graphql were previously published on opam, so choosing either name wouldn't solve the issue of clearly indicating to opam users what is the way to go. Given that unpublishing a package would be bad practice, I propose to simply include DEPRECATED in the synopsis of ppx_graphql as soon as graphql_ppx has been updated. My intern @jtcoolen will take care of opening the PR on opam-repository updating graphql_ppx from version 0.0.4 to version 0.7.1.

[Zimmi48]

Done: https://opam.ocaml.org/packages/graphql_ppx/

@andreas It's probably best if you are the one opening the PR to add DEPRECATED to the description of ppx_graphql (but I can do it on your behalf if you prefer). It would be great also if you could redirect users to graphql_ppx from the README and archive the repository. Otherwise, you'll keep receiving PRs like https://github.com/andreas/ppx_graphql/pull/8 from people who are missing out on the recommended alternative.

[jfrolich]

I am for using @reasonml-community/graphql-ppx on npm and ppx_graphql on opam, so we use the naming conventions for both platforms.

[Zimmi48]

graphql_ppx is not the first package to have a trailing _ppx instead of a leading ppx_ on opam. And by using a different name on opam than in the repository, you'd be breaking a stronger convention IMHO. In any case, the package is already published on opam, so I wonder what are you proposing @jfrolich? To publish a single package under two names?

[jfrolich]

graphql_ppx is not the first package to have a trailing _ppx instead of a leading ppx_ on opam. And by using a different name on opam than in the repository, you'd be breaking a stronger convention IMHO. In any case, the package is already published on opam, so I wonder what are you proposing @jfrolich? To publish a single package under two names?

1.0 will be published under @reasonml-community/graphql-ppx instead of graphql_ppx, so it would be good to change the OPAM published version for a _ to a dash to make it all consistent when 1.0 lands.

[Zimmi48]

I see, thanks for clarifying! Is the plan to also rename the repo? In any case, the package name in dune-project and in the name of the opam file should probably be fixed in the 1.0 branch if the package is to be published as graphql-ppx.

[jfrolich]

I see, thanks for clarifying! Is the plan to also rename the repo? In any case, the package name in dune-project and in the name of the opam file should probably be fixed in the 1.0 branch if the package is to be published as graphql-ppx.

Yes. Will be part of the release TODO.