Re: Towards 0.7.1

>request for publishing on Bintray as well, which might be the best option for SNAPSHOT.

Yes, I made it. Bintray publishing is much faster, so it can be good
for things like milestones. I am not sure about SNAPSHOT tags as I
used to have some issues with SNAPSHOT resolution in sbt, hope they
have fixed it.

>On naming. We had discussions on dropping the `_jvm` suffix that was
introduced with scala-js. I would like us to have the final discussion
here. In a nutshell, Alistair prefers keeping the suffix to make
things more explicit, while Anton and I believe it is unnecessary as
an absence of suffix is everywhere else already the default for
targetting the JVM. We would still keep `_js` for scala-js project,
eg. `rdfstore_js`.

The problem is the way how artifacts are published. By default project
name (that is the name of artifact) is the same as project id. That is
the reason why I define name := project_without_suffix for each of the
project. At the moment we have ugly artifacts name like
plantain_js_sjs0.5_2.11 and plantain_jvm_2.11 because of _js and _jvm
suffixies, I would prefer to have plantain_sjs0.5_2.11 and
plantain_2.11 instead. The solution here is either to define "name"
sbt property by hand in all projects (what I did in my PR) or to add
feature to sbt-scalajs plugin, so it will do it automaticly ( I opened
such an issue https://github.com/InTheNow/sbt-scalajs/issues/8 ) that
looks like better solution for me (if Alistair will have time for that
of course)

>PS: so happy to have a proper mailing-list now :-)

Yes, having official w3 mailing list make banana look more serious.

In the same time it is less usable then google group. I have always
wondered why people

in W3 who make the future of internet officially use very oldfashioned
tools: old-style mailing lists and static pages.



-- 
Best regards,
Anton Kulaga