incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] - Packages renaming and backward compatibility (was: Re: [VOTE] Graduate Sqoop podling from Apache Incubator)
Date Thu, 08 Mar 2012 16:23:56 GMT
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Alex Karasulu <akarasulu@apache.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 6:05 PM, Benson Margulies <bimargulies@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 2:31 AM, Alex Karasulu <akarasulu@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 3:03 AM, Leo Simons <mail@leosimons.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Benson Margulies <
>> bimargulies@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > Leo, are you out there?
>> >>
>> >> Hmm? Oh, this again...
>> >>
>> >> Having company names or trademarks in java namespaces is a pretty
>> >> stupid convention. It gets us mess like this...
>> >>
>> >> There is no policy that incubating java projects must rename to use an
>> >> org.apache namespace. There has never been such a policy. We don't
>> >> need such a policy. There's (typically/usually/knock on wood) no
>> >> legal/trademark issue. There's ample precedent of keeping 'legacy'
>> >> namespaces around 'a while' for backwards compatibility. And that's
>> >> fine.
>> >>
>> >> At the same time, (incubating) projects should definitely carefully
>> >> consider whether it is reasonable to change their namespaces, how to
>> >> go about it, etc. Incubation can be a good time and/or trigger to make
>> >> such changes, especially for projects for whom backwards compatibility
>> >> isn't a big issue (yet) or that are doing a major revision as part of
>> >> coming here.
>> >>
>> >> With my incubator PMC hat on, I like to see that a project community
>> >> has thought this situation through, discussed it on their dev list,
>> >> and got to some kind of consensus on what to do. I'd imagine such
>> >> plans will include a strategy for eventually having all their code end
>> >> up in an org.apache namespace or at least not in a com.<company>
>> >> namespace.
>> >>
>> >> I'm sure other people said all this already, apologies for the noise,
>> >> but hey, I got prodded, so... :-)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> cheerio,
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Leo
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > Not trying to beat a dead horse to death here but I'm starting to think
>> > that we might have had some basis to these package namespace issues. The
>> > recent private Lucene-Commons threads show what can happen if this policy
>> > is that hmmm liberal. Don't know if that's the right choice of words.
>>
>> Alex, there's an educational opportunity out there, yes.
>>
>
> Indeed. It might be a good idea perhaps to have every project at a minimum
> publish an informative section on their site listing any kind of intrusion
> into package spaces that are not "owned" by the project.
>
> This way at a minimum there is some awareness.

The first problem we have here is that various well-meaning people
don't understand the interactions of maven publication, TLP turf, and
classpath management. Policy/practical advice on this could come out
of commdev and then the incubator could merely be in the business of
pushing people to it.



>
> --
> Best Regards,
> -- Alex

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message