Thomas Mortagne wrote: > On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 13:43, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Oct 7, 2009, at 10:08 AM, Thomas Mortagne wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 10:02, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> On Oct 7, 2009, at 9:47 AM, Thomas Mortagne wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 20:37, Jerome Velociter <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Vincent Massol wrote: >>>>>>> Note: It's important to write somewhere clearly that Xlet projects >>>>>>> are >>>>>>> not done by the xwiki dev team and not supported by the xwiki dev >>>>>>> team >>>>>>> (and thus that the quality depends on the contributor(s)). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It could also be mentioned that at some point an Xlet project >>>>>>> could be >>>>>>> elected to become a platform project if the interest is generic, >>>>>>> if >>>>>>> it's voted and if the quality is good enough. >>>>>> I agree. I think the best place for that would be a page on >>>>>> code.xwiki.org. >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't think we need a new wiki for the forge (except technically >>>>>> - for >>>>>> SVN), I would be to aggregate all info that concern contrib in >>>>>> code.xwiki.org since they are closely related. >>>>>> >>>>>> BTW I forgot to mention in the original email, I think we should >>>>>> propose >>>>>> a generic maven groupId for individuals or projects that don't want >>>>>> to >>>>>> come up with their own. Something like "org.xwiki.contrib". >>>>> all projects are supposed to have at least a name and generally can >>>>> use org.xwiki.myproject I think >>>> The current rule is org.xwiki.<top level project> so if contrib is a >>>> top level project it seems logical to have org.xwiki.contrib. >>> contrib is a repository of top level projects not a project itself IMO >> I really don't like the idea of a repository of top level projects for >> contrib projects. I think I'd be -1 for having that. Same as we don't >> have a repo of top level sandbox project and a repo of top level > > This is exactly what is sandbox, do you see any > applications/plugins/etc. folders ? > Actually yes, there is a plugin folder ;) But ok, it's a mix currently, plugins exists either under the root directory or under plugins/
I think the two debates groupId and SVN folder or not organzation are separate. We already have org.xwiki.platform.tools as groupId distinct from org.xwiki.platform (while there's none for applications, plugins, etc.) so the rule "groupId match SVN top level projects" is already invalidated - and I don't think we need such a strong rule anyway. I would be -1 too for org.xwiki.<projectname> groupIds for contrib projects (no regarding the fact we call them top level projects or not) for the simple reason that from an external PoV they appear as XWiki projects (read developed by the XWiki development team) which they are not. Jerome. >> platform projects. > > As I said the way it's organized between plugins and applications > currently is wrong IMO. > > Also note that with your arguments there is no reason to have > enterprise and manager top projects, all their sub projects should be > extracted and organized by type instead of project. > >> It would also break our top level project rule which is that projects >> at http://svn.xwiki.org/svnroot/xwiki/ are top level projects and have >> associated jira/wiki/etc. >> >> However as I mentioned I'm for being able to graduate from the contrib >> project to the platform project or even to a top level project if we >> want it, but on a case by case basis. >> >> Thanks >> -Vincent >> >> _______________________________________________ >> devs mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs >> > > > _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
