I find the name Arduino-Boards a bit confusing and not very intuitive. Shouldn’t it be named something like “the collection of Kaleidoscope submodules that represent the Keyboardio stock firmware for the Model 01” - just shorter?
It is one of the most important repos on https://github.com/keyboardio. I imagine that a more significant name might help newbies.
It may not be the best name, but it is a reasonably correct one nevertheless: it contains Arduino board definitions & associated code. It… used to be a lot thinner, back when we didn’t have plugins.
I agree that the name is correct, but rather from the perspective of a developer than that of a user who does not know too much about Arduino.
Currently Arduino-Boards targets the M01. But what happens when Keyboardio is going to release other keyboards (I hope they will)? In that case, sooner or later, the name will definitely end up being misleading. I know I risk sounding pedantic here (what I actually am 
). But for me, the current name was actually quite confusing.
Unfortunately, github does not allow alias names for repos.
FWIW, what about pinning the repo? I find myself cloning it quite often.
We’ll figure something out long before that happens. 
I agree too, the name is far from perfect. There are many other things not quite okay with the repo and the way it is set up. There are plans to fix that, but there are still a few higher priority issues to work through first.
On the other hand, when renaming a repo, the old name will redirect (not sure how long, mind you, but quite long… GitHub - keyboardio/Kaleidoscope: Firmware for Keyboardio keyboards and other keyboards with AVR or ARM MCUs. redirects to Kaleidoscope for example, even though the rename was done a long time ago) …
I’d rather not pin it, until we figure out a better name, and possibly a better organization within it too. Then a pin would be great, indeed.
Strange. As they obviously have the technical capability, why don’t they allow alias names within a users domain? I googled up and down the internet but did not find anything about repo alias names.
Although I am pretty sure that they will support the old names of renamed repos forever (why shouldn’t they), I would not rely on that.
As I recall, it was duplicating a common pattern from similar projects.
In my mind, it’s essentially a ‘build artifact’ and the fact that there is any unique code in it is a slight defect.
I know that we’re in the process of moving the build automation into its own repository.
That our opinion about which libraries are ‘bundled’ is tracked with git submodules is…less than ideal. We may want to look into a bit of automation to manage that better and more explicitly.