On Thu, 2020-09-24 at 12:15 +0200, Konrad Windszus wrote: > On 24. Sep 2020, at 11:58, Robert Munteanu <romb...@apache.org> > wrote: > > We created Jira versions in the form of 'Artifact Name' 'Version' > > for > > quite some time, only one of them stands out by being different. > > Just a > > note, not something bad by itself. > > I would very much appreciate consistency in the naming. > This is IMHO more important than the fact whether we use artifactId > or artifactName. > > It is important for committers to know how to label things correctly. > I myself am used to using artifact names. > I probably wouldn't find artifact ids. > > As the reporters very rarely fill that field anyways, I think we use > what works best for committers. > And (speaking only for myself) with that in mind I would keep "OSGi > Feature Maven Plugin" and not rename back to artifact id.
I rolled back the change until we get some consensus on how to use version names. I agree that version names are probably not useful very much for our users. At best, they might fill in the 'Component' field. We are not at a point where we are drowning in bug reports and need more structure in the process. My proposal would be to a) change the name of the slingfeature-maven-plugin to 'Apache Sling SlingFeature Maven Plugin' or 'Apache Sling Feature Maven Plugin' b) Update the new Jira versions accordingly, e.g. 'SlingFeature Maven Plugin 1.4.6' for the unreleased one. I think the version name is descriptive enough for reporter that choose to select it and also brings around consistency in how we handle Jira versions. Thoughts? Robert
