New release naming

[Deraen]

The next release is no longer following Cljs compiler versioning.

While changing stuff, I decided to also move the repository from adzerk-oss organization to boot-clj organization.

I'm now also wondering what other names to change:

• group-id: Maybe powerlaces (used by boot-cljs-devtools) or perhaps boot-clj (same as github org)
• namespaces: Even the namespaces refer adzerk, could be changed to refer the new group-id powerlaces.boot-cljs or boot-clj.boot-cljs (ugh), or perhaps just boot-cljs.core or boot-cljs.tasks. Most Clojure libraries don't start namespace names with group-id.
• Versioning: if we use different group-id, we could also start versioning from 1.0.0 instead of 2.0.0.

[arichiardi]

My 2c:

• I like powerlaces because it hints at boot tooling stuff without having it (again?) in the name
• I like the version with no group-id
• I would keep the old versioning to show continuity

[RadicalZephyr]

FWIW, I really like the general boot task library convention of having group-id/artifact-id translate directly to (require [group-id.artifact-id :refer [task-name]). To me, that implies that powerlaces is maybe nicer than boot-clj because there is less repetition in the namespace.

I think if the group-id and the namespaces get changed, starting over at 1.0.0 makes more sense IMHO, since it's essentially a different project, with conveniently similar functionality.

[Deraen]

I have decided to release the next release using the old group-id and namespaces.

I'd still like to eventually use some other group-id, but naming is hard.

[martinklepsch]

[powerlaces/boot-cljs "2.0.0"]

powerlaces.boot-cljs/cljs ; <- task-var

• Don't change version scheme, it will only confuse people looking at changelogs. A namechange is just an item in the changelog if the project doesn't shift focus fundamentally.
• I do like the [powerlaces.boot-cljs :refer [cljs]] pattern as described by @RadicalZephyr; lots of boot tasks follow it.