On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 6:05 PM, Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 2:31 AM, Alex Karasulu <akaras...@apache.org> > wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 3:03 AM, Leo Simons <m...@leosimons.com> wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Benson Margulies < > bimargul...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > Leo, are you out there? > >> > >> Hmm? Oh, this again... > >> > >> Having company names or trademarks in java namespaces is a pretty > >> stupid convention. It gets us mess like this... > >> > >> There is no policy that incubating java projects must rename to use an > >> org.apache namespace. There has never been such a policy. We don't > >> need such a policy. There's (typically/usually/knock on wood) no > >> legal/trademark issue. There's ample precedent of keeping 'legacy' > >> namespaces around 'a while' for backwards compatibility. And that's > >> fine. > >> > >> At the same time, (incubating) projects should definitely carefully > >> consider whether it is reasonable to change their namespaces, how to > >> go about it, etc. Incubation can be a good time and/or trigger to make > >> such changes, especially for projects for whom backwards compatibility > >> isn't a big issue (yet) or that are doing a major revision as part of > >> coming here. > >> > >> With my incubator PMC hat on, I like to see that a project community > >> has thought this situation through, discussed it on their dev list, > >> and got to some kind of consensus on what to do. I'd imagine such > >> plans will include a strategy for eventually having all their code end > >> up in an org.apache namespace or at least not in a com.<company> > >> namespace. > >> > >> I'm sure other people said all this already, apologies for the noise, > >> but hey, I got prodded, so... :-) > >> > >> > >> cheerio, > >> > >> > >> Leo > >> > >> > > > > Not trying to beat a dead horse to death here but I'm starting to think > > that we might have had some basis to these package namespace issues. The > > recent private Lucene-Commons threads show what can happen if this policy > > is that hmmm liberal. Don't know if that's the right choice of words. > > Alex, there's an educational opportunity out there, yes. > Indeed. It might be a good idea perhaps to have every project at a minimum publish an informative section on their site listing any kind of intrusion into package spaces that are not "owned" by the project. This way at a minimum there is some awareness. -- Best Regards, -- Alex