no issue for me, keep or rename is just a matter of prefrence. I'd like to keep the same name since I got used to it. but the votes take precedence.
-D On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 8:49 AM, Benjamin Bentmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jerome Lacoste wrote: > > > > I try to avoid not following the conventions, as the problems that can > > appear later when using a "buggy" plugin. > > > > Where's your audacity :-) ? > > > > > Why can't we move the POM under mojo-parent AND rename the parent > > artifact to mojo-parent ? > > > > Hm, sounds logical to me. The guys over at Commons handle their parent POM > similiar, i.e. its artifact id is "commons-parent" and it is kept in a > standalone directory/trunk named "commons-parent". > > As a matter of consistency, I assume we would do the same to the sandbox > parent, i.e. move/rename it to "mojo-sandbox-parent". > > Then another question arises: If we change the artifact id, should we > continue the version numbering with 18 or just start over with 1? > > > > > Doesn't that solve everybody's problem ? > > > > I guess, at least the Commons guys seem happy with their setup but maybe > Dennis knows better. > > > > > Projects would be forced to change their POM, but they already have to > > change the version number... > > > > I agree, changing the aid in addition to the version shouldn't be that > hard for plugin developers. > > How do others like Jerome's suggestion? > > > Benjamin > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: > > http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
