polygene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Niclas Hedhman <nic...@hedhman.org>
Subject Re: [jira] [Commented] (ZEST-20) Setup repository for maven artifacts
Date Mon, 15 Jun 2015 11:07:36 GMT
Board doesn't really have an opinion on the matter. It would be trademarks@
or maybe infra.

I am sure we can make it stick to 'org.qi4j' IF we also declare that 3.0 is
next and it is converging there.

Apache River is still using net.jini package names and such, and that is
something like 8 years down the line from coming to ASF.

So, let's lower the burden and keep what we have, since IIRC the build
system will autogenerate all the groups and names, and something might
break if that is touched, like the very obscure ClassVersion generation ;-)

Cheers
Niclas

On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Sandro Martini <sandro.martini@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
> to me all proposals seems good, unless objections from ASF for
> artifacts names (or some technical constraints by Maven repository)
> ... maybe we could tell this in our next report to be sure (and have
> less problems later), and write our plans for this for 3.0.
>
> Bye
>
>
> 2015-06-15 11:40 GMT+02:00 Paul Merlin <paul@nosphere.org>:
> > Niclas Hedhman a écrit :
> >> I have no strong opinion about it. I just note that it is "should" and
> not
> >> "must", and compatibility is always a reasonable excuse.
> >>
> >> Are you suggesting that only the GroupId will be changed, and that the
> >> artfacts are still called org.qi4j.core.api-2.1.jar  ?
> > That's not what I was thinking about but we can also do this. Move
> > groupId from org.qi4j.* to org.apache.zest.* ; keep the actual
> > artifactIds and java packages.
> >
> > I understand "maven" groupIds as the organization that release the
> > associated artifacts. Hence this discussion.
> >
> > I'm pretty sure we'll want to release 3.0 under org.apache.zest groupId.
> > Maybe with org.apache.zest.* artifactIds. Maybe with java packages
> > relocated under org.apache.zest. We didn't discuss this just yet and we
> > have some time for this.
> >
> > On the other hand, if we can release 2.1 without groupId/artifactId
> > relocation (org.qi4j.*:org.qi4j.*), the impact on existing applications
> > upgrading from 2.0 to 2.1 will be close to none, and that'd be a good
> thing.
> >
> > In between the two is maven coordinates relocation without java packages
> > changes. This should only impact the build system of existing
> > applications upgrading from 2.0 to 2.1, not their codebase. I myself can
> > live with that.
> >
> > We can ask for several groupIds for a single project at
> > repository.apache.org. So, we could ask for both org.qi4j and
> > org.apache.zest.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > /Paul
> >
> >
>



-- 
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://zest.apache.org - New Energy for Java

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message