Re: [jira] Created: (GSHELL-151) Repackage org.apache.geronimo.gshell.* - org.apache.gshell.*
IMHO - If they are truly subprojects of Geronimo (and use the same svn geronimo-committer group), then they should use org.apache.geronimo.* for their released artifacts. Guess the complication now, is that they already have released artifacts using other groupIds, which would confuse users more now if we changed them -Donald Jason Dillon wrote: On Dec 18, 2008, at 1:12 AM, Donald Woods wrote: Seems that as a community we should keep our project name as part of all groupIds we generate... If no one else feels that way, then fine, I will not call for a vote, but my opinion stands... :-) Just curious what you think about xbean and yoko packaging given your opinion.. ? --jason
Re: [jira] Created: (GSHELL-151) Repackage org.apache.geronimo.gshell.* - org.apache.gshell.*
On Dec 18, 2008, at 1:12 AM, Donald Woods wrote: Seems that as a community we should keep our project name as part of all groupIds we generate... If no one else feels that way, then fine, I will not call for a vote, but my opinion stands... :-) Just curious what you think about xbean and yoko packaging given your opinion.. ? --jason
Re: [jira] Created: (GSHELL-151) Repackage org.apache.geronimo.gshell.* - org.apache.gshell.*
Seems that as a community we should keep our project name as part of all groupIds we generate... If no one else feels that way, then fine, I will not call for a vote, but my opinion stands... :-) -Donald Kevan Miller wrote: On Dec 17, 2008, at 7:27 AM, Jason Dillon wrote: On Dec 16, 2008, at 11:41 AM, Donald Woods wrote: Seems like something we should vote on, given our specs, samples, components and plugin subprojects all use org.apache.geronimo.* IMO specs, samples, components and plugins are all specific to geronimo, so the sub-package makes sense. xbean on the other hand is not geronimo specific directly under o.a. IMO GShell is not geronimo-specific, closer in nature to xbean than to specs or components. So for me the change of packages makes a lot of sense. I agree. There's no requirement that sub-projects fall under a top-level project namespace. There are certainly lots of examples of this... XBean and Yoko being two examples within Geronimo. There are lot's of examples outside of Geronimo... If we have a fundamental difference of opinion on this, then we can certainly put it to a group vote. Barring such a disagreement, I don't think a vote is needed... I'll assume that subsequent discussion will determine if a vote is needed. --kevan
Re: [jira] Created: (GSHELL-151) Repackage org.apache.geronimo.gshell.* - org.apache.gshell.*
On Dec 16, 2008, at 11:41 AM, Donald Woods wrote: Seems like something we should vote on, given our specs, samples, components and plugin subprojects all use org.apache.geronimo.* IMO specs, samples, components and plugins are all specific to geronimo, so the sub-package makes sense. xbean on the other hand is not geronimo specific directly under o.a. IMO GShell is not geronimo-specific, closer in nature to xbean than to specs or components. So for me the change of packages makes a lot of sense. --jason -Donald Jason Dillon wrote: No, it just seems that subprojects don't seem to use the parents namespace. mina, activemq seems to follow that, even xbean does that. so i figured I would drop the extra layer. --jason On Dec 16, 2008, at 12:39 AM, Donald Woods wrote: Are you proposing GShell becoming a TLP and not a Geronimo subproject? -Donald Jason Dillon (JIRA) wrote: Repackage org.apache.geronimo.gshell.* - org.apache.gshell.* - Key: GSHELL-151 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ GSHELL-151 Project: GShell Issue Type: Improvement Security Level: public (Regular issues) Components: Build Reporter: Jason Dillon Assignee: Jason Dillon Priority: Critical Fix For: 1.0-beta-1
Re: [jira] Created: (GSHELL-151) Repackage org.apache.geronimo.gshell.* - org.apache.gshell.*
On Dec 17, 2008, at 7:27 AM, Jason Dillon wrote: On Dec 16, 2008, at 11:41 AM, Donald Woods wrote: Seems like something we should vote on, given our specs, samples, components and plugin subprojects all use org.apache.geronimo.* IMO specs, samples, components and plugins are all specific to geronimo, so the sub-package makes sense. xbean on the other hand is not geronimo specific directly under o.a. IMO GShell is not geronimo-specific, closer in nature to xbean than to specs or components. So for me the change of packages makes a lot of sense. I agree. There's no requirement that sub-projects fall under a top-level project namespace. There are certainly lots of examples of this... XBean and Yoko being two examples within Geronimo. There are lot's of examples outside of Geronimo... If we have a fundamental difference of opinion on this, then we can certainly put it to a group vote. Barring such a disagreement, I don't think a vote is needed... I'll assume that subsequent discussion will determine if a vote is needed. --kevan
Re: [jira] Created: (GSHELL-151) Repackage org.apache.geronimo.gshell.* - org.apache.gshell.*
Sure. I just but that issue in there so I don't forget :-) --jason On Dec 16, 2008, at 11:41 AM, Donald Woods dwo...@apache.org wrote: Seems like something we should vote on, given our specs, samples, components and plugin subprojects all use org.apache.geronimo.* -Donald Jason Dillon wrote: No, it just seems that subprojects don't seem to use the parents namespace. mina, activemq seems to follow that, even xbean does that. so i figured I would drop the extra layer. --jason On Dec 16, 2008, at 12:39 AM, Donald Woods wrote: Are you proposing GShell becoming a TLP and not a Geronimo subproject? -Donald Jason Dillon (JIRA) wrote: Repackage org.apache.geronimo.gshell.* - org.apache.gshell.* - Key: GSHELL-151 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ GSHELL-151 Project: GShell Issue Type: Improvement Security Level: public (Regular issues) Components: Build Reporter: Jason Dillon Assignee: Jason Dillon Priority: Critical Fix For: 1.0-beta-1
Re: [jira] Created: (GSHELL-151) Repackage org.apache.geronimo.gshell.* - org.apache.gshell.*
Are you proposing GShell becoming a TLP and not a Geronimo subproject? -Donald Jason Dillon (JIRA) wrote: Repackage org.apache.geronimo.gshell.* - org.apache.gshell.* - Key: GSHELL-151 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GSHELL-151 Project: GShell Issue Type: Improvement Security Level: public (Regular issues) Components: Build Reporter: Jason Dillon Assignee: Jason Dillon Priority: Critical Fix For: 1.0-beta-1
Re: [jira] Created: (GSHELL-151) Repackage org.apache.geronimo.gshell.* - org.apache.gshell.*
No, it just seems that subprojects don't seem to use the parents namespace. mina, activemq seems to follow that, even xbean does that. so i figured I would drop the extra layer. --jason On Dec 16, 2008, at 12:39 AM, Donald Woods wrote: Are you proposing GShell becoming a TLP and not a Geronimo subproject? -Donald Jason Dillon (JIRA) wrote: Repackage org.apache.geronimo.gshell.* - org.apache.gshell.* - Key: GSHELL-151 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GSHELL-151 Project: GShell Issue Type: Improvement Security Level: public (Regular issues) Components: Build Reporter: Jason Dillon Assignee: Jason Dillon Priority: Critical Fix For: 1.0-beta-1
Re: [jira] Created: (GSHELL-151) Repackage org.apache.geronimo.gshell.* - org.apache.gshell.*
Seems like something we should vote on, given our specs, samples, components and plugin subprojects all use org.apache.geronimo.* -Donald Jason Dillon wrote: No, it just seems that subprojects don't seem to use the parents namespace. mina, activemq seems to follow that, even xbean does that. so i figured I would drop the extra layer. --jason On Dec 16, 2008, at 12:39 AM, Donald Woods wrote: Are you proposing GShell becoming a TLP and not a Geronimo subproject? -Donald Jason Dillon (JIRA) wrote: Repackage org.apache.geronimo.gshell.* - org.apache.gshell.* - Key: GSHELL-151 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GSHELL-151 Project: GShell Issue Type: Improvement Security Level: public (Regular issues) Components: Build Reporter: Jason Dillon Assignee: Jason Dillon Priority: Critical Fix For: 1.0-beta-1
