Any reason why we can't use org.apache.shale for the package names still? I can't really think of a better package name off hand.
Sean On 8/3/06, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 8/3/06, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm ok with shale-goodies as long as we can release artifacts as > different versions, etc. I'm assuming that's the case. I think we're > all curious about the google option so lets go ahead with it. We can > always move it in a few months if it doesn't pan out. Right now > there;s just shale-petstore and it wouldn't be the end of the world to > lose the svn history if we had to move it. I set up a "maven/trunk/master-pom" analogous to what we have in the Apache repository ... you could set up shale-petstore/trunk to make it independently branchable and so on. We could even set up a "current" externals later. We'll have to think about the package names (and Maven artifact ids) here ... I used "shale-goodies:shale-goodies:1-SNAPSHOT" for the initial master pom, but haven't checked in any code yet. my gmail is sean.schofield Added. Sean > > ps. Google is also doing something cool which is allowing you to host > your domain email through them. There is a beta test going on and > they accepted my application. Something to consider for folks who > have their own domain for business purposes. That is pretty cool. Craig
