Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-commons-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 38231 invoked from network); 24 Nov 2010 15:36:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 24 Nov 2010 15:36:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 45303 invoked by uid 500); 24 Nov 2010 15:36:54 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-commons-dev-archive@commons.apache.org Received: (qmail 45119 invoked by uid 500); 24 Nov 2010 15:36:54 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@commons.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: "Commons Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list dev@commons.apache.org Received: (qmail 45109 invoked by uid 99); 24 Nov 2010 15:36:54 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 15:36:54 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.7 required=10.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [74.125.82.171] (HELO mail-wy0-f171.google.com) (74.125.82.171) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 15:36:46 +0000 Received: by wyb38 with SMTP id 38so2764464wyb.30 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 07:36:25 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.227.28.10 with SMTP id k10mr9499283wbc.215.1290612984478; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 07:36:24 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: jcarman@carmanconsulting.com Received: by 10.227.141.198 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 07:36:01 -0800 (PST) From: James Carman Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 10:36:01 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: SLaGSaVlnOddAj8pooh1iQ9Jx54 Message-ID: Subject: [VOTE] Accept the package name/artifactId guideline as a "rule"... To: Commons Developers List Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org We've had this package name/artifactId change discussion numerous times and I think it's time we put this thing to a vote. What I propose is that we say that this is a rule and in order to "break" that rule, you have to provide strong evidence that the component's situation is unique and not affected by the issues that this rule tries to address. This is to avoid re-hashing this argument all the time. If a component wants to break the rule, then they should think through the arguments (read the Wiki page first) and carefully consider why they feel they are unique and unaffected by the issues. So, here's the rule: A major version change requires that you change the package name (the part that comes after org.apache.commons) and the Maven artifactId to the component's name with the major version appended to the end. [ ] +1 - accept this as a rule [ ] -1 - do not accept this as a rule Note that we already have a "rule" that says if you're going to break binary compatibility, you have to change the major version number, so this rule picks up where that one leaves off I guess. p.s. We might also want to propose a rule that says any new releases of a commons component have to be done in the org.apache.commons groupId, but that's another issue. p.p.s. If anyone cares to restate this rule, please feel free to do so. I may not have addressed certain "gotchas", but the general idea is presented. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org