Repository naming

[Neumann-A]

If we create repositories for vcpkg registries i think it is unnecessaty to double up on the term vcpkg. I thing it is enough to have e.g. open-vcpkg/qt5-registry instead of open-vcpkg/vcpkg-qt5. Any other opinions about naming repos?

For registries i think there should be a collection repo which shows how to consume the registries in the org (via a ready to use config json) and there might be an order how to use some of the registries which should also be documented there.

[m-kuhn]

I was thinking that in forks and local clones where the scope of the org is not visible a vcpkg prefix would help to identify the purpose. I like the -registry suffix though as this also hints in this direction and even adds semantics within the organisation.

[Neumann-A]

I was thinking that in forks and local clones where the scope of the org is not visible a vcpkg prefix would help to identify the purpose.

I can understand that but github typically shows forked from <original>. So the connection should be visible any way. Of course if it is cloned you don't see that anymore but I assume that by that point the connection is known.