www-repository mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [repo] /www/people.apache.org/repo/m1-ibiblio-rsync-repository/
Date Tue, 12 Dec 2006 23:51:25 GMT

Regarding b/c) I would say our recommendation is to use the PMC name  
as the top level for simplicity (ie, you can create your own groups),  
but that it is not a requirement.

- Brett

On 13/12/2006, at 10:31 AM, Henri Yandell wrote:

> On 12/12/06, Craig L Russell <Craig.Russell@sun.com> wrote:
>> As far as I can tell, the association of a project with a PMC is for
>> convenience and has nothing to do with the name or identity of the
>> project. Look at projects that used to be in jakarta and are now in
>> commons. And the DB PMC has a grab bag of projects.
>> I suppose you could say the same about the groupId, but I think the
>> connection between a PMC and a groupId is much more tenuous than
>> between a project identity and a groupId.
>> So I'd like to see the projects continue to choose their groupId
>> according to consensus within the projects, possibly based on
>> recommendations made by others (e.g. the maven folks are happy to
>> recommend naming schemes, and the PMC's themselves might contribute
>> ideas); and not have Apache or anyone else tell the projects how to
>> name their groupIds.
> I'd like to see it so that we have:
> a) org/apache/*. Everything down to that level 'secured'.
> b) One PMC per project directory. ie) org/apache/commons/*
> c) N projects per PMC. ie) org/apache/sandesha2 is absolutely fine.
> d) Project directories are group-owned by the PMC unix group. commons
> by jakarta, sandesha2 by ws etc.
> Requests for new project directories to be dealt with by Infra via  
> Hen
> [Okay, I'm stealing much of this from an IRC idea from Wendy]

View raw message