> But in thinking it over, and avoiding rehashing all the technical > details, what bothers me most about what happened is that the Lucene > PMC is/was held accountable for "having released code in another > project's namespace", yet, none of us realized we had done so. We are
I don't know how maven is of relevance here. Yes, maven repositories will last forever but it's no different than the release of binary packages that contained modified binaries of another Apache project (they shouldn't be re-released and once released, they'll have the life of their own). To me it's the same thing from technical and moral point of view -- nothing connected to maven. > I think that's bad: I'm not comfortable being held accountable for > something I don't understand. That's taking things too seriously I think. Nobody in the maven community will blink an eye at this... > their sources like that; I had no idea we were doing so. Ignorance is > not an excuse and really the Lucene PMC is/was negligent... ...and I don't see negligence here. We were not aware this can raise legal problems from the board, were we? Steven may disagree but I still fail to find something offensive in publishing an artefact in the same Java package namespace but _with a different group/artefact ID_. Yes, ok -- there is a possibility of a package class clashes with official releases (and it's bad) but this isn't like we just sneakily published commons-csv under their own group/artefact ID to confuse people. > I think, to fix this, we (the Apache Lucene PMC) should stop > officially posting artifacts to Maven ourselves. I think it's great I'm -1 to this. Many people use maven, we have maven experts as committers... I don't see an issue here. Dawid --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
