incubator-jspwiki-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Jaquith <>
Subject Re: package names (was Re: PLEASE READ: package names, trademarks and legal advice)
Date Thu, 24 Jan 2008 12:18:46 GMT
I like Simon's idea. The big thing *I* need, as someone who has lots  
of 3.0 Stripes-related checkins ready, is to get that SVN repository  
up and running. If doing that with the com.jspwiki package works for  
Apache, fine.

However, if the release-JSPWiki2.8-from-Apache approach does not fly,  
I would prefer to rename packages for 2.8. Although that would mean we  
cause two breaks, it might also make migration to the new APIs  
slightly easier -- because you'd separate the package import migration  
step from the method-level changes for 3.0.

On the other hand -- it's equally possible that plugin and JSP  
developers would bypass 2.8 regardless of the approach we take, while  
they wait for the "real" 3.0 release.

All of this is a long-winded way of saying, "I don't care," or 0 for  


On Jan 24, 2008, at 6:50, Simon Kitching <> wrote:

> Hi Janne et. al.,
> While it is not possible for code to be released from an incubator
> project, I see no reason why code cannot be developed in apache svn  
> but
> released by the project.
> I would therefore suggest that:
> 1) the code be imported into apache svn
> 2) the licensing be changed, but NOT the packagenames
> 3) a 2.8.0 release be made from the site, as a
> release, using the code taken from the apache svn. This release will  
> be
> under the Apache license, but with the existing packagenames and  
> stating
> that it is a product, not an ASF product (ie NOTICE etc
> refer to or ecyrd).
> 4) then the packagenames can be changed in apache svn, NOTICE updated,
> promotion from incubator to full project can happen, and a 3.0 ASF
> release of the code can be made.
> With this approach:
> (a) work can be done in the asf repository, using asf procedures, asf
> mailing lists etc. This will provide evidence of the community  
> necessary
> for promotion from the incubator. The cvs should be frozen
> at the time of import into apache svn, so there is only one "active"
> repository.
> (b) the move to ASF doesn't block release of a jspwiki 2.8.0 release.
> That release cannot be made under the ASF name, but that doesn't  
> matter.
> Even 2.8.1 etc. can be developed in the asf repo, as long as it is
> released by not
> The fact that the released code is not in the org.apache namespace
> doesn't matter, because it is not an ASF release.
> *Note that this is just my opinion*. The project mentor/incubator PMC
> are the ones who would have to ok this.
> Regards,
> Simon (; ASF member, but not incubator pmc)
> Janne Jalkanen schrieb:
>> Folks,
>> The opinion seems to be that for 2.8, we would need to rename all the
>> packages to org.apache.jspwiki.*.  This means that ALL existing
>> plugins and modules will break.  The problem is that we're going to
>> break the API again in 3.0 (that's why the "3"), when revamping the
>> backend.
>> So, this means two source and binary breaks between two consecutive
>> major releases, invalidating all of the existing plugins.
>> We have three options: change our release plans, bite the bullet and
>> accept the breaks, or alternatively, postpone graduation until we  
>> have
>> 3.0 (which may take a while).
>> Opinions?  Other alternatives?
>> /Janne
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>> From: "Noel J. Bergman" <>
>>> Date: 24 January 2008 07:23:49 GMT+02:00
>>> To: <>
>>> Subject: RE: package names (was Re: PLEASE READ: package names,
>>> trademarks and legal advice)
>>> Reply-To:
>>> Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
>>>> On Jan 23, 2008 11:02 AM, Noel J. Bergman <> wrote:
>>>>>>> Legally, all we can do is ask them to change the package names
>>>>>>> and
>>> if
>>>>>>> they don't, there's nothing we can do
>>> Please note: I did not make the above statement.  You quoted me  
>>> quoting
>>> someone else.  Any legal advice would have to come from the ASF  
>>> Legal
>>> Committee in consultation with ASF legal counsel.  I don't know how
>>> to make
>>> this point any clearer.
>>>> so, does this mean:
>>>> - during incubation the packages should be renamed to  
>>>> org.apache.* but
>>>>  not on the start?
>>>> - is org.apache.* an exit criteria ? I think yes
>>> We've already been through this many times, with Roller, Wicket and
>>> others,
>>> so I'd go back and look to see how we handled it there --- and
>>> And, yes, I agree that switching to the o.a. package space is a
>>> graduation
>>> requirement at the very least.
>>>    --- Noel
>>> --- 
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>> For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message