-1 on demotion...unless we can release before a said demotion... There are 2 (jspc and jboss) that are becoming used pretty heavily...and I think a demotion would be a negative...since they have been out in the wild for some time now.
So should I enable a vote for those in another thread? Jeff Brett Porter wrote: > +1 to these, but let's make the sandbox plugins distinct. > > Let's also demote to the sandbox anything that hasn't had a release yet. > > - Brett > > Brian E. Fox wrote: >> I've been looking at some plugins in the sandbox and I see some issues: >> >> 1. If sandbox plugins deploy sites, (as they probably should so they get >> some visability), the scm connections are wrong because they inherit >> from the mojo parent. >> 2. Some plugins have the name maven-xxx-plugin instead of xxx-maven-plugin >> 3. Many plugins aren't even posted on the mojo site. >> >> I'd like to have a vote on these issues: >> >> 1a. Should we create a mojo-sandbox parent and have sandbox plugins >> derive from here? This way we can set the scm urls and anything else >> that comes along here. Only the parent section would need to change when >> a plugin graduates from the sandbox. >> >> - OR- >> >> 1b. Keep deriving from mojo parent, but add instructions to site to tell >> devs how to override the scm connection when added to sandbox and add >> instructions to guidelines for release to have devs remember to remove >> the override when graduating. >> >> >> 2. Should we correct the plugin names? >> >> 3. Should all sandbox plugins be added to the mojo sandbox site? >> >> Thx. >> >> >>
