Rename crate name skywalking_rust to skywalking?

[jmjoy]

The suffix _rust is not necessary, and using the crate name skywalking can prevent fraudulent use by third parties.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #23 (b74f993) into master (25e4f28) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master      #23   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   86.91%   86.91%           
=======================================
  Files           9        9           
  Lines         298      298           
=======================================
  Hits          259      259           
  Misses         39       39           

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/context/trace_context.rs	74.78% <ø> (ø)
src/reporter/grpc.rs	0.00% <ø> (ø)
tests/propagation.rs	96.77% <ø> (ø)
tests/trace_context.rs	100.00% <ø> (ø)

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 25e4f28...b74f993. Read the comment docs.

[wu-sheng]

It works for me, but we have to release 0.2.0 to make this works.

[wu-sheng]

We should keep this hold when we are going to release 0.2.0 right away. Otherwise, the readme doc would look like wrong for the end-users. Right?

[wu-sheng]

The compiling doc in the readme is still skywalking-rust, I think.

[jmjoy]

Compiling doc is means the doc generated by cargo doc? With 0.2.0 released, the skywalking will be a new crate and the name is skywalking in docs.rs.

[wu-sheng]

Oh, I didn't mean this is wrong. I mean https://github.com/apache/skywalking-rust#how-to-compile doesn't match here.

[jmjoy]

OK, but I think the crate name skywalking should be preempted first to prevent it from being occupied by others.

[wu-sheng]

In Apache, we have to release it officially(a new tag approved by the PMC), then I could publish it to the cargo.

Do you think it is a good time to release 0.2.0? And we move capture/continuous to 0.3.0?

[jmjoy]

In Apache, we have to release it officially(a new tag approved by the PMC), then I could publish it to the cargo.

Do you think it is a good time to release 0.2.0? And we move capture/continuous to 0.3.0?

I think it is OK, or use alpha version like 0.2.0-alpha.1 ?

[wu-sheng]

In Apache, we have to release it officially(a new tag approved by the PMC), then I could publish it to the cargo.
Do you think it is a good time to release 0.2.0? And we move capture/continuous to 0.3.0?

I think it is OK, or use alpha version like 0.2.0-alpha.1 ?

I think it is fine if 0.2.0 APIs would be changed in 0.3.0. We usually just make sure 1.0 as a stable version.

[jmjoy]

In Apache, we have to release it officially(a new tag approved by the PMC), then I could publish it to the cargo.
Do you think it is a good time to release 0.2.0? And we move capture/continuous to 0.3.0?

I think it is OK, or use alpha version like 0.2.0-alpha.1 ?

I think it is fine if 0.2.0 APIs would be changed in 0.3.0. We usually just make sure 1.0 as a stable version.

Yes, so we can use 0.2.0.

[wu-sheng]

@jmjoy Are you in the slack or QQ group? Or could you add me wechat through @heyanlong? (I think you two know each other?)

I may need your help to release 0.2.0, as you are not a committer yet. This library was released by @Shikugawa , who is busy in his daily work.

[jmjoy]

@jmjoy Are you in the slack or QQ group? Or could you add me wechat through @heyanlong? (I think you two know each other?)

I may need your help to release 0.2.0, as you are not a committer yet. This library was released by @Shikugawa , who is busy in his daily work.

I'm not in QQ group, I just have the QQ of heyanlong, maybe you can give me the QQ gorup number?

[wu-sheng]

I just added you through QQ on your profile page.