rename project now that non-collection stuff is allowed

[SethTisue]

see discussion on #219

name suggestions so far: scala-2.13-compat, scala-stdlib-compat, scala-compat

[SethTisue]

scala-crossbuilding, maybe

[martijnhoekstra]

my bikeshed would be scala-crosscompat or mauve.

[ekrich]

I like scala-stdlib-compat FWIW.

[lrytz]

scala-library-[compat|crossbuilding|crosscompat] as it's for scala-library?

[NthPortal]

I'm for scala-library-compat or scala-library-crosscompat

[lrytz]

Seeing PRs trickle in with backports from the 2.13 library (thanks, @NthPortal), I find it a little ironic that the 2.11 / 2.12 standard libraries can acquire new classes (through this module), while the one in 2.13 (and 3.0) can't.

Should we consider extending the scope of this module to scala-library-future where we can also add new classes for 2.13 / 3.0?

[julienrf]

Should we consider extending the scope of this module to scala-library-future where we can also add new classes for 2.13 / 3.0?

Given that there will be a lot of time before we can get a 2.14/3.1, yes, that would probably be useful.

[SethTisue]

I think scala-library-compat is the strongest candidate

Should we consider extending the scope of this module

Sure, I don't see why not.

[lrytz]

Sure, I don't see why not.

We'd have to make it clear that everything added to the 2.13 release here would eventually end up in the standard library, so we'd have to be just as conservative.

[SethTisue]

I have renamed the repo and submitted a pair of PRs: #327 to do the renaming, and #328 to update the readme. once #327 has been merged, I can do the publishing.

[SethTisue]

Should we consider extending the scope of this module to scala-library-future where we can also add new classes for 2.13 / 3.0?

I've made a separate ticket on this: #329