commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dennis Lundberg <>
Subject Re: Jira id naming convention for Jakarta projects; WAS Re: [all] Jira?
Date Fri, 28 Apr 2006 18:24:19 GMT
Oleg Kalnichevski wrote:
> Henri Yandell wrote:
>> On 4/27/06, Stephen Colebourne <> wrote:
>>> Henri Yandell wrote:
>>>> Given this positive feedback so far, I'm going to email the infra@
>>>> mailing list to see how they would go about doing it _if_ we decided
>>>> we wanted to move.
>>>> I think we should be moving from 1 project with 37 components to 37
>>>> projects - it'll allow us to manage the components individually of
>>>> each other without the kind of version overlap and general noise
>>>> issues that we currently have.
>>> Jakarta Http Components just created their first Jira, and they got the
>>> name JHCHTTPCORE. Thus this _could_ get caught up in a debate about
>>> Jakarta and groupings.
>> That's the id-code rather than the name (afaik).
>> I didn't know that that was being standardised - JHCHTTPCORE is
>> terrible, sounds like a sneeze.
>> Ideally we should use whatever we want, it's not a namespace to fight
>> over, just need to be unique.
> Henri,
> I also find JHCHTTPCORE absolutely horrible. I chose this id as I 
> thought it would be the most "politically correct" one. I would very 
> much rather prefer HTTPCORE or JHTTPCORE. Do you envisage a particular 
> Jira id naming convention for Jakarta projects? At this point it is 
> still not too late for us to scrap the project and start over with a 
> different (better) project id.

It would be a good idea to look at what the Maven community has done 
with Jira. They have used Jira for some time now. They have their Jira 
over at Codehaus and share the Jira instance with other projects:

They have a naming scheme that prefixes all Maven 2 plugins with M. This 
is followed by the plugins name. They don't use fancy acronyms which are 
hard to read or remember. Some examples:

I think that having a naming scheme is a good idea. From a user 
standpoint I see no reason for keeping the project ids short (3-4 
characters). If Jakarta will be sharing the Jira instance with other ASF 
projects then using a J prefix for Jakarta project should be used, like 

If we can have our own Jira instance for Jakarta then the prefix can 
easily be dropped. I'm not subscribes to infra@ so I don't follow the 
discussions there.

As mentioned elsewhere the project id will show up in the issue-emails 
that are sent to the dev-list. Having meaningful ids there helps human 
filtering as well as automatic mail filters.


Dennis Lundberg

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message