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. Best, Alex
