Mailing-List: contact dev-help@felix.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@felix.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of mcculls@gmail.com designates
 74.125.82.177 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085)
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] contribute maven-bundle-plugin to Apache Maven
From: Stuart McCulloch <mcculls@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <512F8627.1050304@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 16:48:19 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <444A79CB-D102-474B-B0E8-E30E5B14BD3E@gmail.com>
References: <9481FECB-DE37-4AB7-9532-3B2FB561186C@gmail.com>
 <512F6746.3030301@ungoverned.org> <512F8627.1050304@oracle.com>
To: dev@felix.apache.org

On 28 Feb 2013, at 16:30, Sahoo wrote:

> Again any change that causes pain to our users should be avoided. We =
don't want any negative publicity about our stuff no matter how trivial =
they are. Imagine someone doing a google search and finding two =
different plugin coordinates. It does not help a new comer and that's =
where we have been struggling as a community.

<devils-advocate>
Except that having OSGi packaging supported in Maven out-of-the-box =
could be worth any short-term confusion, especially if we use a Maven =
relocation reference to redirect people to the migrated plugin. In such =
cases new users would just change their project packaging from =
jar->bundle to get OSGi support and not need anything else unless they =
needed to override the defaults. Existing users could still continue to =
use current plugin releases, this is just looking at future options - =
and if we did decide to contribute the plugin to Maven then they'd just =
need to remove/change the groupId when changing the version. Not =
trivial, although the pom.xml relocation option could help ease the =
pain, but also not as ground-shaking as requiring users to completely =
rewrite their configuration.
</devils-advocate>

If we do decide to keep the status quo then at least I have a thread to =
point the Maven folks to next time they remind me to update the name...

> Thanks,
> Sahoo
> On Thursday 28 February 2013 07:48 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
>> I am fine with this option as well.
>>=20
>> -> richard
>>=20
>> On 2/28/13 08:35 , Stuart McCulloch wrote:
>>> During the "[DISCUSS] rename maven-bundle-plugin to =
bnd-maven-plugin" thread Marcel and Guillaume came up with =
counter-suggestions involving contributing the maven-bundle-plugin to =
Apache Maven.
>>>=20
>>> This idea has certain advantages - the plugin name would not be an =
issue (assuming the Maven team were ok with 'bundle'=3D=3DOSGi, as there =
are other interpretations of 'bundle' such as resource bundles) and =
there's then a chance we could get the 'bundle' packaging type =
recognized by default by Maven (though this wouldn't necessarily be a =
done deal). It would also mean that people wouldn't need to specify a =
groupId when adding the plugin to their pom.xml and you could use the =
short form of the plugin name from the command-line.
>>>=20
>>> The disadvantages are this would still involve a change of plugin =
coordinates (org.apache.felix -> org.apache.maven.plugins) and any =
changes or improvements would have to go through the Apache Maven =
project.
>>>=20
>>> There's also a question of whether the Apache Maven team would =
accept the contribution...
>>>=20
>>> WDYT?
>>>=20
>>> --=20
>>> Cheers, Stuart
>>>=20
>>> On 28 Feb 2013, at 13:03, Marcel Offermans wrote:
>>>=20
>>>> On Feb 28, 2013, at 13:43 , Stuart McCulloch <mcculls@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>>>>> On 28 Feb 2013, at 07:05, fbalicchia wrote:
>>>>>=20
>>>>>> I think it is the best choice to follow the naming convention.
>>>>>> What I do not understand is why plugins can't be hosted by Apache
>>>>> The Apache Maven team prefer to keep the maven-NNN-plugin naming =
for plugins developed and maintained by them (ie. those with groupId =
org.apache.maven.plugins) whereas Maven plugins developed by other =
Apache (or non-Apache) projects are encouraged to use NNN-maven-plugin =
naming. The idea is to help avoid confusion about which plugins are =
directly supported by Apache Maven team and which are supported =
elsewhere:
>>>>>=20
>>>>>    =
http://www.mail-archive.com/users@maven.apache.org/msg128850.html
>>>>>=20
>>>>> While renaming the plugin would be a courtesy to the Apache Maven =
team, it is not mandatory if it would cause problems for downstream =
users - hence this discussion thread.
>>>> I would say, our users come first. Renaming the plugin causes them =
problems for no reason (to them) so let's not do that.
>>>>=20
>>>> Instead, we could also solve this by donating the plugin to the =
Apache Maven project.
>>>>=20
>>>> Greetings, Marcel
>>=20
>=20