On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Alex Karasulu <akaras...@apache.org> wrote: > 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.
The first problem we have here is that various well-meaning people don't understand the interactions of maven publication, TLP turf, and classpath management. Policy/practical advice on this could come out of commdev and then the incubator could merely be in the business of pushing people to it. > > -- > Best Regards, > -- Alex --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
