Again any change that causes pain to our users should be avoided. We
don't want any negative publicity about our stuff no matter how trivial
they are. Imagine someone doing a google search and finding two
different plugin coordinates. It does not help a new comer and that's
where we have been struggling as a community.
Thanks,
Sahoo
On Thursday 28 February 2013 07:48 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
I am fine with this option as well.
-> richard
On 2/28/13 08:35 , Stuart McCulloch wrote:
During the "[DISCUSS] rename maven-bundle-plugin to bnd-maven-plugin"
thread Marcel and Guillaume came up with counter-suggestions
involving contributing the maven-bundle-plugin to Apache Maven.
This idea has certain advantages - the plugin name would not be an
issue (assuming the Maven team were ok with 'bundle'==OSGi, as there
are other interpretations of 'bundle' such as resource bundles) and
there's then a chance we could get the 'bundle' packaging type
recognized by default by Maven (though this wouldn't necessarily be a
done deal). It would also mean that people wouldn't need to specify a
groupId when adding the plugin to their pom.xml and you could use the
short form of the plugin name from the command-line.
The disadvantages are this would still involve a change of plugin
coordinates (org.apache.felix -> org.apache.maven.plugins) and any
changes or improvements would have to go through the Apache Maven
project.
There's also a question of whether the Apache Maven team would accept
the contribution...
WDYT?
--
Cheers, Stuart
On 28 Feb 2013, at 13:03, Marcel Offermans wrote:
On Feb 28, 2013, at 13:43 , Stuart McCulloch <mccu...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 28 Feb 2013, at 07:05, fbalicchia wrote:
I think it is the best choice to follow the naming convention.
What I do not understand is why plugins can't be hosted by Apache
The Apache Maven team prefer to keep the maven-NNN-plugin naming
for plugins developed and maintained by them (ie. those with
groupId org.apache.maven.plugins) whereas Maven plugins developed
by other Apache (or non-Apache) projects are encouraged to use
NNN-maven-plugin naming. The idea is to help avoid confusion about
which plugins are directly supported by Apache Maven team and which
are supported elsewhere:
http://www.mail-archive.com/users@maven.apache.org/msg128850.html
While renaming the plugin would be a courtesy to the Apache Maven
team, it is not mandatory if it would cause problems for downstream
users - hence this discussion thread.
I would say, our users come first. Renaming the plugin causes them
problems for no reason (to them) so let's not do that.
Instead, we could also solve this by donating the plugin to the
Apache Maven project.
Greetings, Marcel
