Mailing-List: contact dev-help@maven.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Maven Developers List" <dev@maven.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of micah.hainline@asolutions.com
 designates 66.236.120.134 as permitted sender)
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 09:08:26 -0500 (CDT)
From: Micah Hainline <micah.hainline@asolutions.com>
To: Maven Developers List <dev@maven.apache.org>
Message-ID: <3749997.275181207145306348.JavaMail.root@zimbra.asolutions.com>
In-Reply-To: <f6b307f10804011445p2ed3bee8se09cca3bd0c3d350@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: groupId/artifactId mapping for Eclipse jars (was Re: in repo1
 it is available)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-AsynchronySolutions-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more
 information
X-MailScanner-ID: m32E9GC3029648
X-AsynchronySolutions-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-AsynchronySolutions-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam (whitelisted),
	SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-4.399, required 4,
	autolearn=not spam, ALL_TRUSTED -1.80, BAYES_00 -2.60)
X-AsynchronySolutions-MailScanner-From: micah.hainline@asolutions.com
X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org
X-Old-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Old-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.399 tagged_above=-10 required=6.6
	tests=[ALL_TRUSTED=-1.8, BAYES_00=-2.599], No

> From: "Barrie Treloar" <baerrach@gmail.com>
> 
> On the users lists I asked about seeding the repo with 3.2.2 eclipse jars.
> 
> There is some talk about doing so and the naming convention that would be used.
>
> Jason knows who he has been talking to in the Eclipse world.

>From the user mailing list Jason wrote:

> I've been busy but before anyone publishes anything I'll try to summarize the meeting we had at EclipseCon. 
> In a nutshell the OSGi experts around the table like Peter Krien's, and Jeff McAffer agreed aligning the 
> artifact id in Maven with the symbolic id is the way to go in the future. I'll do the summary some time 
> this week. Nothing should be published until this agreed upon method is embodied in the tooling.

That sounds like they've got that worked out then.  Whether the groupId is org.eclipse or org.eclipse.xxx doesn't 
really matter as long as we're all using the same one, and the artifactId is correct.  Thanks for the pointer Barrie.

> (p.s the Dash vs Dot is worse because as per the conflict resolution
> the name without the dash is newer, thus 3.2.2 is considered newer
> than 3.2.2-M2_20080803 and your build fails since it can't find a
> matching version in the range [3.2.2,4.0.0)

Using the dashes in the version wasn't really what I was concerned about, I'd just be 
bummed if we ended up with 

 <artifactId>org-eclipse-core-runtime</artifactId>

instead of 

 <artifactId>org.eclipse.core.runtime</artifactId>

but it sounds like that isn't a concern any more.  I'll wait patiently for Jason to write up the summary.

Micah Hainline

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org