Right, I forgot about the plugins. I think we would need to do maven-nmaven-compile-plugin, which is goofy (and will only get goofier when we add "incubating" version), but we have two conventions to follow: 1) incubator and 2) maven plugin naming convention, which starts with "maven" and ends with "plugin".
Shane On 10/24/07, Evan Worley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > +1 for the nmaven prefix. Akin to maven-compile-plugin would be > nmaven-compile-plugin. I was confused previously when seeing the same > artifact id between nmaven and maven with a different group id. > > -Evan > > On 10/24/07, Shane Isbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > According to the incubator release policy ( > > http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html), the artifact > > file names should contain both (1) incubating and (2) the podling name. > I > > recall that when first importing the project into Apache, we decided on > > using dotnet in the artifact name (dotnet-artifact, dotnet-core, and so > > on) > > since the "nmaven" is unlikely to survive upon moving into Maven core. > To > > follow the release policy, we would need to do something like: > > "nmaven-artifact-incubating" or "nmaven-dotnet-artifact-incubating". My > > feeling is that having both nmaven and dotnet is a bit redundent. From > > chatting with Brett, it looks as though we can just include incubating > > within the version, at least for the java artifacts. > > > > In regards to the .NET assembly file names, they currently follow the > > form: > > NMaven.Artifact, NMaven, Logging, and so on. Since version is not in the > > file name, it would require placing "incubating" within in the artifact > > name: NMaven.Artifact.Incubating. > > > > We need to decide on the naming for both the java and .NET artifacts. > > Thoughts? > > > > Shane > > >
