Hi,

Currently we have 30 repositories in the LedgerSMB github project.
over half of them are related to PGObject modules and are reasonably named in the form of
    PGObject-foo-bar

However, not all of our repositories are named so sensibly.

In particular we now have 4 "packaging" repositories
- pkg-ledgersmb
- pkg-ledgersmb-1.4
- pkg-ledgersmb-1.5
- lsmb-overlay

From the names, it's obscure at best which distro etc each of those repositories is for, more confusing is the fact that the first 3 seem to be duplicates of each other, excepting for the fact that they target different releases of our code.

The first 3 are for debian packages, while the fourth is the new repo Chris has added for gentoo packaging.

To help with "discoverability" and generally make it more obvious what a repo is for, I'd propose a naming scheme along the following lines.
    $purpose-$project-$detail

For true "project" repositories such as LedgerSMB, and PGObject projects $purpose may not make sense, but for others it likely does.
Some examples
- LedgerSMB
- PGObject
- PGObject-Type-DateTime
- pkg-debian-LedgerSMB
- pkg-gentoo-LedgerSMB
- migration_test_data-LedgerSMB
- docker-LedgerSMB
- docker-LedgerSMB-selenium-grid
- OPOS-LedgerSMB-integration
- LedgerSMB-PHP-bindings

I think it's probably early enough in the lifecycle of most of the repositories that could do with renaming to rename them now.
I say that as the ones that would change have little use outside of our project controlled resources.

As for having the pkg-ledgersmb-1.x repositories as well as the unversioned one, Unless Jame has a reason to do otherwise, I'd suggest we simply use tags in the pkg-ledgersmb repo instead.
Consider the situation if we ended up with packaging repos for every different distro, and also every release series we do in the future, things would quickly become unmanageable