> An initial incubator release probably not, but it may block later releases or graduation.
For question at hand, this should be 'a package rename for life' so graduation should be the assumption. The difference between may or will is what is this hinges on. > so using org.apache.pekko may give you more legal protection than just pekko Public record of being first should be enough substance if a dispute arises with an external party, but agreed that the prefix dodges such a dispute althogether. > I know of no ASF project that only uses the bare project name "They did not know it was impossible so they did it" Anyhow, there's clear averseness towards going "special", both on committer and mentor side. Anybody feel the arguments for outweigh the sensitivity? While I'm firmly for short/special, I don't believe it's worth a 'told you so' community trauma. Which is probably enough reason to stick with the path of least resistance -> full Apache package name. On Sun, Nov 6, 2022, 09:41 Justin Mclean <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > > If the other option is chosen, would that cause that much trouble that it > > blocks a release? > > An initial incubator release probably not, but it may block later releases > or graduation. > > > When it comes to branding, I'm assuming the general brand not existing in > > software should be some form of protection. > > Unless it’s a trademark very little and Apache is a trademark, so using > org.apache.pekko may give you more legal protection than just pekko. > > I do know of some projects that kept their original package name as they > had good reasons to do so, I know of no ASF project that only uses the bare > project name. > > Kind Regards, > Justin > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
