<!-- triage-serverless v3 PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE THIS SECTION --> *This page may contain information related to upcoming products, features and functionality. It is important to note that the information presented is for informational purposes only, so please do not rely on the information for purchasing or planning purposes. Just like with all projects, the items mentioned on the page are subject to change or delay, and the development, release, and timing of any products, features, or functionality remain at the sole discretion of GitLab Inc.* <!-- triage-serverless v3 PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE THIS SECTION --> ### Context When you publish a Conan package, you can simply use the `package-name/version` or the full recipe: `package-name/version@user/channel`. Based on our interactions with the Conan community, it seems it is much more common for C/C++ developers to use only the package name and version when publishing Conan packages. ### Problem to solve The problem is that GitLab only accepts the full recipe. This means that C/C++ developers need to customize their package naming conventions just to use GitLab. For many of our customers, this is a deal-breaker. ### Proposal Allow developers to publish Conan packages with name/version only, which is the more commonly used convention. This change will only impact those using the project-level endpoint, as the instance-level packages rely on the `user` in `pkg/version@user/channel` to identify the target project #### Further details This has been identified by several customers as a blocker in their organization adopting the GitLab Package Registry. We expect to see a 15% lift in the amount of Conan packages published to the GitLab registry as the result of this change. ## Testing and Availability We have end-to-end tests for the Conan package manager. This test should be passing after implementing name/version only (the test currently uses the full recipe with the project-level endpoint). To verify that we run `package-and-qa` on the MRs.