www-repository mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Chamikara Jayalath" <chamikar...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [repo] /www/people.apache.org/repo/m1-ibiblio-rsync-repository/
Date Tue, 12 Dec 2006 06:04:24 GMT
I understand your point.

Unfortunately Sadesha2 release was also done on Sunday. And dists etc are
already available in Apache dists and other mirrors.

I would have certainly corrected the group id hd I know that such a
discussion occured here before but I guess its too late now :-(


On 12/12/06, Wendy Smoak <wsmoak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/11/06, Chamikara Jayalath <chamikaramj@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Actually I was following the convention that was being followed by many
> WS
> > projects. I.e. to have the package name in the group Id.
> >
> > For example Apache Axis2 project has the group Id ' org.apache.axis2'
> and
> > Apache Axis has the group Id 'org.apache.axis'. Is there an reason to do
> it
> > differently in this project ?
> The Maven convention is to use a domain name that you control, not
> (necessarily) the package name.  (See:
> http://maven.apache.org/guides/mini/guide-ibiblio-upload.html)
> In addition, within Apache we like to be able to easily identify the
> responsible PMC by looking at the groupId.
> I think we've talked about Axis and Axis2 here before.  IMO, they also
> belong under org.apache.ws and should eventually be relocated.  When
> there are existing releases, changing the groupId can cause some pain,
> so they're generally being allowed to stay for now.
> For new sub-projects within Apache, there's no reason to continue
> inventing new groupIds that don't correspond to top level projects.
> For this one, org.apache.ws.sandesha2 seems appropriate.
> Carlos, any further thoughts on this?
> --
> Wendy

View raw message