On Dec 4, 2008, at 1:45 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
Kevan Miller wrote:
At one point we discussed renaming these artifacts as geronimo
artifacts (e.g. org/apache/geronimo/patched/jasper/6.0.18-G678601/
jasper-6.0.18-G678601.jar ). Would this be a better technique for
solving the issue?
I'm concerned this pushes us toward forking the code as well. Would
that require that we maintain source poms with the appropriate
package names and versions and a source svn from which to build the
artifacts? At the moment we bypass all of this by simply renaming
the jars as we check them into our repo. Maybe that is already an
issue, but it seems that releasing these as independent entities
makes them more public and subject to more scrutiny (and possible
mis-use by other projects).
I don't know that it would require a radical departure from what we're
doing today. I'm not suggesting that we swizzle java package names
(just the artifact names and poms).
It does make them more public, but I'm not sure that's a bad thing.
IMO, it's more or less equivalent to what we're doing, currently, and
fixes the silly build dependency issues that we've created for
ourselves.
--kevan
