Should we rename our PyPI packages

[tayloramurphy]

As Edgar pointed out we have a few packages that we've prefaced with meltanolabs https://pypi.org/user/MeltanoLabs/

For our first-party ones we may want to consider using meltano even if the repo doesn't match.

[edgarrmondragon]

cc @kgpayne

[WillDaSilva]

I'm not sure if this issue is about existing packages on PyPI, or packages that we're planning to add to PyPI in the future.

Existing packages can't be renamed, but we can create new ones, and then update the old ones with a final version that has a description explaining that the new name should be used, no code, and a dependency on the latest version of the new package. This isn't ideal for a number of reasons, but I'm not sure of any better ways to effectively rename a PyPI package.

[tayloramurphy]

@WillDaSilva likely new ones. I want us to have a convention in place going forward and then we can make a call about "renaming" if needed.

[kgpayne]

Related to: https://github.com/meltano/internal-general/discussions/457

[kgpayne]

@tayloramurphy do you have a shortlist of likely 1st-party candidates as examples? What is the driving factor for creating a distinction between 1st-party (meltano) vs. the meltanolabs shared ownership model (with us/Meltano as primary maintainers)? I'd be hesitant to further fragment the ownership model by implying a quality distinction between meltano and meltanolabs at this stage, preferring to be selective and deliberate about what quality we accept and expect in the meltanolabs namespace 🤔

[tayloramurphy]

@kgpayne tap/target postgres/snowflake are the ones I think we should rename at least. Agreed that I don't want to imply some sort of quality distinction.