Goal
Document the exact 1:1 (or N:1) mapping table from current `Nuke.` namespaces to `Fallout.` BEFORE executing the rename. This is the planning step — implementation comes after.
Current namespaces
```
Nuke.Common
Nuke.Common.CI.*
Nuke.Common.ChangeLog
Nuke.Common.Execution
Nuke.Common.Git
Nuke.Common.IO
Nuke.Common.ProjectModel
Nuke.Common.Tooling
Nuke.Common.Tools.
Nuke.Common.Utilities
Nuke.Build
Nuke.Build.Shared
Nuke.Components
Nuke.GlobalTool
Nuke.MSBuildTasks
Nuke.ProjectModel
Nuke.SolutionModel
Nuke.SourceGenerators
Nuke.Tooling
Nuke.Tooling.Generator
Nuke.Utilities
Nuke.Utilities.IO.Compression
Nuke.Utilities.IO.Globbing
Nuke.Utilities.Net
Nuke.Utilities.Text.Json
Nuke.Utilities.Text.Yaml
```
Proposed mapping
Default: `Nuke` → `Fallout` prefix-swap. So `Nuke.Common` → `Fallout.Common`. Same for every other.
Question: opportunity to restructure?
Some natural consolidations worth considering:
- `Nuke.Build` + `Nuke.Build.Shared` + `Nuke.Common` overlap; do they merge?
- `Nuke.Utilities.IO.` could become `Fallout.IO.`
- `Nuke.Common.Tooling` + `Nuke.Tooling` overlap
Recommendation: keep the 1:1 swap for the rename PR. Restructuring is a separate concern — adds risk to an already-large change.
Done when
Goal
Document the exact 1:1 (or N:1) mapping table from current `Nuke.` namespaces to `Fallout.` BEFORE executing the rename. This is the planning step — implementation comes after.
Current namespaces
```
Nuke.Common
Nuke.Common.CI.*
Nuke.Common.ChangeLog
Nuke.Common.Execution
Nuke.Common.Git
Nuke.Common.IO
Nuke.Common.ProjectModel
Nuke.Common.Tooling
Nuke.Common.Tools.
Nuke.Common.Utilities
Nuke.Build
Nuke.Build.Shared
Nuke.Components
Nuke.GlobalTool
Nuke.MSBuildTasks
Nuke.ProjectModel
Nuke.SolutionModel
Nuke.SourceGenerators
Nuke.Tooling
Nuke.Tooling.Generator
Nuke.Utilities
Nuke.Utilities.IO.Compression
Nuke.Utilities.IO.Globbing
Nuke.Utilities.Net
Nuke.Utilities.Text.Json
Nuke.Utilities.Text.Yaml
```
Proposed mapping
Default: `Nuke` → `Fallout` prefix-swap. So `Nuke.Common` → `Fallout.Common`. Same for every other.
Question: opportunity to restructure?
Some natural consolidations worth considering:
Recommendation: keep the 1:1 swap for the rename PR. Restructuring is a separate concern — adds risk to an already-large change.
Done when