Issue 6000 - Rename "libadblockplus-android"

Issue 6000 - Rename "libadblockplus-android"

New code review https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29782630/

[anton, 2018-01-24 07:08:36]

You can see lots of changes, but actually they are just:
1) renamed "libadblockplus-..." dirs to "adblockplus-..."
2) modify README
3) modify some files that have filesystem paths (eg. `build.gradle`)

[jens, 2018-01-24 10:53:04]

https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29678581/diff/29678582/adblockplus-android...
File adblockplus-android-webviewapp/build.gradle (left):

https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29678581/diff/29678582/adblockplus-android...
adblockplus-android-webviewapp/build.gradle:24: versionName "2.1"
Why are we jumping from 5 to 7 resp. 2.1 to 2.3 for this module?

[anton, 2018-01-24 11:43:46]

On 2018/01/24 10:53:04, jens wrote:
>
https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29678581/diff/29678582/adblockplus-android...
> File adblockplus-android-webviewapp/build.gradle (left):
> 
>
https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29678581/diff/29678582/adblockplus-android...
> adblockplus-android-webviewapp/build.gradle:24: versionName "2.1"
> Why are we jumping from 5 to 7 resp. 2.1 to 2.3 for this module?

Yes, i did increment twice.
Just trying to upload new patch set (getting timeout errors)..

[diegocarloslima, 2018-01-24 13:34:16]

https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29678581/diff/29678589/README.md
File README.md (right):

https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29678581/diff/29678589/README.md#newcode4
README.md:4: An Android library project, tests and demo application for
AdblockWebView widget.
I think the word 'view' here is quite redundant since it's already present in
AdblockWebView

https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29678581/diff/29678589/README.md#newcode16
README.md:16: 
In the README, we are calling our project Adblock Android SDK. For me, it would
be more consistent if we either:
1) Keep it Adblock Android SDK and rename the modules to adblock-android
2) Change to Adblock Plus Android SDK and keep the modules as
adblockplus-android

As Felix commented in the ticket, we already use just Adblock in a few places,
so I would go for 1, since it's shorter

https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29678581/diff/29678589/README.md#newcode85
README.md:85: 
Shouldn't this one stay as libadblockplus-binaries, since we're currently not
renaming libadblockplus?

[anton, 2018-01-24 13:43:12]

On 2018/01/24 13:34:16, diegocarloslima wrote:
> https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29678581/diff/29678589/README.md
> File README.md (right):
> 
> https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29678581/diff/29678589/README.md#newcode4
> README.md:4: An Android library project, tests and demo application for
> AdblockWebView widget.
> I think the word 'view' here is quite redundant since it's already present in
> AdblockWebView
> 
> https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29678581/diff/29678589/README.md#newcode16
> README.md:16: 
> In the README, we are calling our project Adblock Android SDK. For me, it
would
> be more consistent if we either:
> 1) Keep it Adblock Android SDK and rename the modules to adblock-android
> 2) Change to Adblock Plus Android SDK and keep the modules as
> adblockplus-android

> 
> As Felix commented in the ticket, we already use just Adblock in a few places,
> so I would go for 1, since it's shorter

Agree, to be done.

> 
> https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29678581/diff/29678589/README.md#newcode85
> README.md:85: 
> Shouldn't this one stay as libadblockplus-binaries, since we're currently not
> renaming libadblockplus?

Right, it should remain "libadblockplus-binaries"

[anton, 2018-01-29 11:12:04]

On 2018/01/24 13:43:12, anton wrote:
> On 2018/01/24 13:34:16, diegocarloslima wrote:
> > https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29678581/diff/29678589/README.md
> > File README.md (right):
> > 
> > https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29678581/diff/29678589/README.md#newcode4
> > README.md:4: An Android library project, tests and demo application for
> > AdblockWebView widget.
> > I think the word 'view' here is quite redundant since it's already present
in
> > AdblockWebView
> > 
> >
https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29678581/diff/29678589/README.md#newcode16
> > README.md:16: 
> > In the README, we are calling our project Adblock Android SDK. For me, it
> would
> > be more consistent if we either:
> > 1) Keep it Adblock Android SDK and rename the modules to adblock-android
> > 2) Change to Adblock Plus Android SDK and keep the modules as
> > adblockplus-android
> 
> > 
> > As Felix commented in the ticket, we already use just Adblock in a few
places,
> > so I would go for 1, since it's shorter
> 
> Agree, to be done.
> 
> > 
> >
https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29678581/diff/29678589/README.md#newcode85
> > README.md:85: 
> > Shouldn't this one stay as libadblockplus-binaries, since we're currently
not
> > renaming libadblockplus?
> 
> Right, it should remain "libadblockplus-binaries"

see patch set #2

[diegocarloslima, 2018-01-29 15:12:14]

On 2018/01/29 11:12:04, anton wrote:
> On 2018/01/24 13:43:12, anton wrote:
> > On 2018/01/24 13:34:16, diegocarloslima wrote:
> > > https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29678581/diff/29678589/README.md
> > > File README.md (right):
> > > 
> > >
https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29678581/diff/29678589/README.md#newcode4
> > > README.md:4: An Android library project, tests and demo application for
> > > AdblockWebView widget.
> > > I think the word 'view' here is quite redundant since it's already present
> in
> > > AdblockWebView
> > > 
> > >
> https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29678581/diff/29678589/README.md#newcode16
> > > README.md:16: 
> > > In the README, we are calling our project Adblock Android SDK. For me, it
> > would
> > > be more consistent if we either:
> > > 1) Keep it Adblock Android SDK and rename the modules to adblock-android
> > > 2) Change to Adblock Plus Android SDK and keep the modules as
> > > adblockplus-android
> > 
> > > 
> > > As Felix commented in the ticket, we already use just Adblock in a few
> places,
> > > so I would go for 1, since it's shorter
> > 
> > Agree, to be done.
> > 
> > > 
> > >
> https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29678581/diff/29678589/README.md#newcode85
> > > README.md:85: 
> > > Shouldn't this one stay as libadblockplus-binaries, since we're currently
> not
> > > renaming libadblockplus?
> > 
> > Right, it should remain "libadblockplus-binaries"
> 
> see patch set #2

LGTM

[jens, 2018-02-08 07:46:30]

On 2018/01/29 15:12:14, diegocarloslima wrote:
> On 2018/01/29 11:12:04, anton wrote:
> > On 2018/01/24 13:43:12, anton wrote:
> > > On 2018/01/24 13:34:16, diegocarloslima wrote:
> > > > https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29678581/diff/29678589/README.md
> > > > File README.md (right):
> > > > 
> > > >
> https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29678581/diff/29678589/README.md#newcode4
> > > > README.md:4: An Android library project, tests and demo application for
> > > > AdblockWebView widget.
> > > > I think the word 'view' here is quite redundant since it's already
present
> > in
> > > > AdblockWebView
> > > > 
> > > >
> >
https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29678581/diff/29678589/README.md#newcode16
> > > > README.md:16: 
> > > > In the README, we are calling our project Adblock Android SDK. For me,
it
> > > would
> > > > be more consistent if we either:
> > > > 1) Keep it Adblock Android SDK and rename the modules to adblock-android
> > > > 2) Change to Adblock Plus Android SDK and keep the modules as
> > > > adblockplus-android
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > As Felix commented in the ticket, we already use just Adblock in a few
> > places,
> > > > so I would go for 1, since it's shorter
> > > 
> > > Agree, to be done.
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > >
> >
https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29678581/diff/29678589/README.md#newcode85
> > > > README.md:85: 
> > > > Shouldn't this one stay as libadblockplus-binaries, since we're
currently
> > not
> > > > renaming libadblockplus?
> > > 
> > > Right, it should remain "libadblockplus-binaries"
> > 
> > see patch set #2
> 
> LGTM

LGTM

[René Jeschke, 2018-05-15 08:35:25]

On 2018/02/08 07:46:30, jens wrote:
> On 2018/01/29 15:12:14, diegocarloslima wrote:
> > On 2018/01/29 11:12:04, anton wrote:
> > > On 2018/01/24 13:43:12, anton wrote:
> > > > On 2018/01/24 13:34:16, diegocarloslima wrote:
> > > > > https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29678581/diff/29678589/README.md
> > > > > File README.md (right):
> > > > > 
> > > > >
> > https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29678581/diff/29678589/README.md#newcode4
> > > > > README.md:4: An Android library project, tests and demo application
for
> > > > > AdblockWebView widget.
> > > > > I think the word 'view' here is quite redundant since it's already
> present
> > > in
> > > > > AdblockWebView
> > > > > 
> > > > >
> > >
> https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29678581/diff/29678589/README.md#newcode16
> > > > > README.md:16: 
> > > > > In the README, we are calling our project Adblock Android SDK. For me,
> it
> > > > would
> > > > > be more consistent if we either:
> > > > > 1) Keep it Adblock Android SDK and rename the modules to
adblock-android
> > > > > 2) Change to Adblock Plus Android SDK and keep the modules as
> > > > > adblockplus-android
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > As Felix commented in the ticket, we already use just Adblock in a few
> > > places,
> > > > > so I would go for 1, since it's shorter
> > > > 
> > > > Agree, to be done.
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > >
> > >
> https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29678581/diff/29678589/README.md#newcode85
> > > > > README.md:85: 
> > > > > Shouldn't this one stay as libadblockplus-binaries, since we're
> currently
> > > not
> > > > > renaming libadblockplus?
> > > > 
> > > > Right, it should remain "libadblockplus-binaries"
> > > 
> > > see patch set #2
> > 
> > LGTM
> 
> LGTM

LGTM