“unmanaged” and “managed” don’t have an intuitive meaning

[julienrf]

I always have to check out the documentation to remember what they mean. Also, the fact that the sourceDirectory actually points to the root of the unmanagedSourceDirectories is confusing.

What do you think of the following naming convention instead?

unmanagedSourceDirectories becomes sourceDirectories,
managedSourceDirectories becomes generatedSourceDirectories,
sourceDirectories becomes allSourceDirectories.

[eed3si9n]

@julienrf Thanks for the report.

The term "managed" vs "unmanaged" also comes up in managedClasspath, where it means that dependency manage takes care of some of the JARs files as opposed to the ones that you manually supply in lib/ directory. In the classpath case, it feels a bit more natural because we normally let sbt deal with the JARs. But for sourceDirectories it's a more awkward since humans write the source code by default. Maybe this was a case of consistency where it shouldn't have been. I don't know.

Given the amount of build and plugins that exists in the world based on this unmanaged or managedSourceDirectories, however, I don't know what we can really do here. Renaming unmanagedSourceDirectories to sourceDirectories even in sbt 2.x I feel like would cause more problem than the naming problem it aims to solve.