Should package name be “polars”?

[grantmcdermott]

As a general principle, I think that repo names should correspond exactly to package names. Unfortunately, there’s a subtle hyphen in the way here, which IMO is unnecessary and potentially confusing for users who are trying to install from source.

TL;DR Consider moving the repo from pola-rs/r-polars to pola-rs/rpolars (i.e., drop the second hyphen).

[sorhawell]

@grantmcdermott you're right it is a bit confusing as of now.

Current naming within the polars organization are (project; package)
py-polars; polars
rust-polars; polars
nodejs-polars; ?
r-polars; rpolars

I don't like currently writing docs and have to choose between r-polars and rpolars knowing most readers will not see the difference.
I was concidering to also rename the R package just polars. This would also be more alligned with the r-arrow;arrow naming standard.

What do you think of that?

[eitsupi]

Perhaps one of the following two would be better?

• repo: pola-rs/r-polars, package: polars
• repo: pola-rs/rpolars, package: rpolars

Certainly the former may be more consistent. (which seems to be more common in the R package)

[grantmcdermott]

Thanks both. I really like @eitsupi's first suggestion: Use repo: pola-rs/r-polars, package: polars.

This would obviously be a breaking change, since the package name will be changing. But I personally think it's worth it to establish long-term consistency. (And, as @sorhawell says, make it easier to maintain docs!)

P.S. I'm sure there are plenty of examples that follow the above structure. But one that comes to mind is tinytest.

[vincentarelbundock]

I think this can be closed via the recent PR merge, no?

[eitsupi]

Yes, let's close.