# The present and the future of package registration

**URL:** <https://discourse.julialang.org/t/the-present-and-the-future-of-package-registration/99890>\
**Category:** Package Management\
**Created:** [June 5, 2023, 1:40pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/the-present-and-the-future-of-package-registration/99890 "2023-06-05T13:40:11Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 68

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![essenciary](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/essenciary/32/210469_2.png) [@essenciary](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/essenciary)\
**Post date:** [June 7, 2023, 5:29pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/the-present-and-the-future-of-package-registration/99890/68 "2023-06-07T17:29:17Z")

</div>

Maybe I’m the ultra-liberal in the room, but for the life of me I can’t understand why there should be limits on how I name my package, or how I document, or test my package? As long as I’m not doing anything offensive, I should be allowed to register it - and the Julia users can decide if they want to use it or not.

The very basic argument is that registration checks are practically useless:

- the entire codebase can be changed after the registration
- useless tests can be easily added

In addition, it can lead to subjective decisions. As in the case of “generic” names - when is a package generic enough to be allowed a generic name?

Finally, naming a package is also a branding decision, and frankly, these descriptive name guidelines are boring as hell.

* * *

Edit 1: please don’t take the discussion in the direction of the usefulness of tests and documentation, I fully agree on their value.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/the-present-and-the-future-of-package-registration/99890)._