Preferred naming for a parallel Azure CLI package (azure-cli-v3 vs azure-cli@3)

[Alex-AZPS]

Hi Homebrew maintainers,

We're seeking guidance on the preferred Homebrew naming convention for a new Azure CLI package.

The current Azure CLI is installed with:
 

brew install azure-cli

We are developing a new generation of Azure CLI that will be released and supported alongside the current Azure CLI. Customers will be able to choose either product.

Both products provide the az executable, so we understand they would likely need to be mutually exclusive.

Our goal is to keep package naming reasonably consistent across package ecosystems (Homebrew, APT, RPM, WinGet, etc.) while still aligning with Homebrew conventions.

The naming options we are currently considering are:

azure-cli-v3
azure-cli@3

Our understanding is that @ is commonly used for versioned formulae, but we are unsure whether that would be appropriate in this scenario since the new Azure CLI is maintained in a separate codebase and is intended to coexist with the current Azure CLI as a distinct supported product rather than a direct upgrade path.

Which naming approach would Homebrew generally prefer in a case like this?

We would appreciate any guidance or references to existing Homebrew conventions that may apply.

Thank you!

[gromgit]

From an end-user perspective, a brand-new name is preferred over a version suffix, as the latter just confuses.

[Alex-AZPS]

Thanks, that makes sense.

Our preference is to keep “Azure CLI” in the package name because customers already recognize it as Microsoft’s cross-platform command-line tool for managing Azure resources. The new CLI is intended as a next-generation Azure CLI experience, not an unrelated product with a separate brand.

However, I understand the concern that azure-cli-v3 or azure-cli@3 may look like a simple versioned formula and could confuse users if both CLIs are supported in parallel.

Just to confirm, would azure-cli-v3 or azure-cli@3 still be acceptable from Homebrew’s perspective, even if a distinct non-versioned name would be preferred from an end-user perspective?

[gromgit]

The new CLI is intended as a next-generation Azure CLI experience, not an unrelated product with a separate brand.

That suggests azure-cli-ng to me.

[SMillerDev]

Will it always be v3? Then it can be -v3, see iTerm2 and pcre2.
Is it just the v3 version and you'll keep supporting the existing v2 and the new version? Then it should be @3.