Rename to react-router-redux

[jlongster]

@ryanflorence and @mjackson have invited this project to join the rackt set of projects since it aligns well with how they envision react-router and redux integration. I think it will essentially replace redux-router and that will live as its own standalone project.

We're considering renaming it react-router-redux as it will be more official bindings. Unless anyone has any better ideas, I say we go with it.

[ellbee]

Will be great to have this project join rackt!

react-router-redux sounds good to me 👍

[kimjoar]

That's great! 👍 💯

[arkist]

good enough 🌟

[lukebennett]

👍

[omnidan]

Sounds good! Just have to make sure it's not too confusing to have two react/redux routers that sound almost the same too. (redux-router vs react-router-redux) That could be solved with documentation though. (explaining the differences between the two)

[choonkending]

I reckon go for it! Sounds exciting.

[jlongster]

I'm going to set a date for this: Wednesday. I'll think through anything we need to do before then.

[jlongster]

I stalled on this because I was worried about the rename, sync redux-router is also in rackt it seems like calling this react-router-redux is going to be super confusing.

@ryanflorence @mjackson Are you all sure you want to rename this? If so, I feel like we should either rename redux-router or do something so that it's not so confusing which is which.

[MattKunze]

Any reason to switch away from redux-simple-router? I usually cringe when things have "simple" in the name (argh SOAP!), but it actually seems warranted in this case

[jlongster]

I think Ryan and Michael want it to be more "official" bindings. But I suspect with enough community feedback they might be fine keeping the name.

[gaearon]

Maybe we can find a different name for redux-router too?

[ryanflorence]

We're removing the current redux-router from rackt, so there shouldn't be any confusion.

[ryanflorence]

@acdlite can you transfer it to your account?

[acdlite]

Done! :)

[acdlite]

I also added a comment to the README directing people to this repo: https://github.com/acdlite/redux-router#for-a-more-stable-official-binding-between-redux-and-react-router-try-redux-simple-router

[jlongster]

Thanks for all your work @acdlite!

[jlongster]

I just moved it, but I lost access to any settings. @ryanflorence can you help me figure out permissions? github is so confusing with permissions. How can I maintain admin access, as well as give it to kjbekkelund?

I can't rename the repo until I get access back.

[satazor]

react-router-redux looks great to me... same as react-router but suffixed with redux.. Looking forward to this!

[naw]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but redux-simple-router just ties redux to a history object, and isn't actually react-specific. If so, react probably shouldn't be in the new name.

From a loose coupling perspective, you could imagine using this with a redux-based application without react-router at all (i.e. either a completely different non-react router, or perhaps a different react-specific router), as long as those routers were designed to interact with a history object.

[kimjoar]

@naw Yep, as of right now we're not coupled to react-router at all, but we might end up going that route (see #95 — long discussion with lots of thoughts and ideas).

But yeah, either way, I also prefer redux-simple-router to react-router-redux.

[ryanflorence]

"Simple", "smart", or "tiny" always end up being lies or offenses. Eventually, your library becomes complex, surprising, or gigantic. If you're lucky, it simply remains an affront (purposeful or not) to other people's attempts at solving the same problem. I think the new name avoids both problems.

My personal interest in bringing it into Rackt is for an official answer to the question "how should I connect react router and redux?". I'd rather a library be named to answer a question v. explaining the (initial) complexity of implementation :)

[gaearon]

What about redux-history?

(Edit: whoops, #80 (comment) and #95 (comment))

[kidwm]

Why not just use redux-react-router ?

[timdorr]

@jlongster Have you made any decisions on this? Half of this issue was the move to rackt, which is completed. The other half is a rename, which seems to be less pressing (and would nullify the existing "brand" of the project). I'm inclined to say we're done here unless there's a strong desire to rename things.

[jlongster]

This project has already evolved to be a little more complex, nothing crazy but I agree with @ryanflorence that the current name isn't very suitable to long-term decisions. Having simple made a strong point in the beginning but react-router-redux makes more sense.

We probably should have done this with 2.0.0. Why don't we do this in the next few days with a minor release?

[timdorr]

Sure, sounds great!

I say at some point in the near future (this weekend?) we push a 2.1.0 release under the new name and then deprecate 2.0.4 under the old name with a warning about the name switch. I also say we keep releasing under both names until 3.0 hits (if ever), deprecating any releases under redux-simple-router with that same warning. Sound like a plan?

[jlongster]

@timdorr Sounds good, but I don't think we need to keep releasing under both names. I heard from Dan Abramov you can tell npm to redirect it, so npm install redux-simple-router still works even if our package is react-router-redux. If that works, the biggest pain point goes away (both github and npm will redirect).

I might be remembering wrong... hope not.

[timdorr]

It sounds like they can maybe do it for us, but it might be delayed or ignored: npm/npm#7515 I think npm deprecate is the preferred option for now.

[gaearon]

No, I think only GitHub repos can be redirected. With npm you need to deprecate.

[jlongster]

Oh, that's right. Isn't there at least a way to tell the user "this is deprecated, you should download react-router-redux instead"? I could have sworn there was, but I'm probably wrong. I'll look into it more today/tomorrow.

I'm not sure I want to keep releasing under both names, that seems like it could be more confusing, and just make people change it to get the new version. It shouldn't be too hard to change names, just find/replace.

[timdorr]

Yes, that's what npm deprecate does.

[timdorr]

We need to push a 2.1.0 for #218 and #225. That would be a good time to do a rename, so I can take care of all of that around the same time, if there are no objections.

[jlongster]

Ok, that sounds good.

[timdorr]

OK, kicking this off now. I'm going to merge in #218, update the URLs in the project, and then publish that as a 2.1.0 under the react-router-redux package on NPM. I'll then npm deprecate 2.0.4 and we'll be good to go.

[timdorr]