Rename $module.info.yml into extension.yml

As I stated in the composer issue, I am very much -1 to this.

Having multiple tabs open with the same filename sucks and I definitely don't want to add places in core where this happens.

So I understand that this is proposed to be called an extension.yml because it applies to modules, themes, profiles, etc. The word core uses for the concept of all this in core is *component*. I understand why this might be confusing wrt Symfony components, but this is our existing terminology eg. in update module.

Having multiple tabs open with the same filename sucks and I definitely don't want to add places in core where this happens.

Actually I'm not sure this is a valid argument, it will easier all kind of scripting to do this, and could make the file system lookups much more efficient for finding modules.

The word "component" is also increasingly being used in front-end development. It refers to a "design component" that is a incapsulated, reusable bit of styling. And just to make it more confusing, design "components" is not a 100% ubiquitous term. They are also referred to as "modules", "blocks" and "elements". :-)

One thing they are not referred to as is "extensions". ;-)

Completely off-topic, I want "modules" renamed to "extensions". This proposed solution is in-line with that idea.

And recently bundle services registration are moving to a services.yml file. We could continue and move the module info into an extension.yml file, makes all of that being consistent.

That's kind of a major part of my workflow, actually. I jump back and forth a lot between features .info files and theme .info files (in this case, a subtheme of omega which makes heavy use of .info files for configuration storage). I wouldn't have brought it up if it wasn't going to be a problem.

Would this issue then imply we also rename $module.services.yml to services.yml and $module.routing.yml to routing.yml?

module.services.yml holds services.
module.routing.yml holds routes.
module.info.yml holds info about the module/theme/whatever.

Why is the proposal not therefore info.yml? Then we're not inventing a new word for these things that we don't use anywhere else (if we wanted to use an existing word, that'd be "project," not "extension").

But I personally think module.info.yml is just fine, especially since we have those other module.foo.yml naming conventions already.

Are themes included in the renaming of info files?

If #8 answer is yes then I think these names looks good.
services.yml holds services.
routing.yml holds routes.
info.yml holds info about the module/theme/whatever.
This also fulfills "Enforce one extension per directory" criteria.

sun: In a community as fixated on whitespace in code comments as ours (for better or for worse), you can't possibly expect anyone to take you seriously that filenames are "borderline irrelevant". ;)

-1 to "extension.yml" -- no where else in all of Drupal do we call these "extensions" (whether we should is a separate question, and has much farther-reaching implications than these filenames).

If we have to rename these at all (I'm not sure) +1 to info.yml.

But why do we need to "enforce" this constraint in the first place? There are a billions ways to break Drupal if you don't follow the rules. Why is this particular one worthy of something that would (potentially / in some ways) reduce the DX to enforce? We don't actually *enforce* that you have a .info(.yml)? file at all. But if you don't, Drupal doesn't find your code. So, if you don't follow the rules, your stuff is broken. Big deal. Follow the rules.

#9 makes a lot of sense to me too. If we are to rename, then go with info.yml that includes the "info" word in the filename. "info" is there in previous versions and when I scan through a directory my eyes are accustomed to look for that word in the files listed. My point is that it's much easier to get the hint that module.info changed to info.yml than to extension.yml.

We just renamed all template.php to $themename.theme, I see no reason to go the opposite direction here.

Marking postponed (needs more info) on dww's #13. I also don't really understand why this is worth doing.

related #7269: [meta] Add .php extension to PHP files

If we consider #8 as an option, will it still be a won't fix? For me it is a DX win that we have simpler file names. It is great for contrib/custom as well copy an existing module and just change internal content no need to rename the files.

#8 is a huge reason *not* to do this. We just changed template.php to THEMENAME.theme for a reason.
If everything was named routing.yml I would have gone completely 100% insane trying to do #1981368: Convert all routes to 'module_name.foo_bar' naming convention :)

Let's just leave this issue to die.

I don't see #8 as corollary of this at all. extension.yml is about extension discovery. Everything else happens if you've already discovered an extension.

If I open 3 extension.yml files in a text editor, it becomes increasingly confusing which is which.

But it doesn't matter, this is closed.

Updated issue summary.