Re: Maven plugin naming pattern
Have you received any respone from trademarks@a.o? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: Maven plugin naming pattern
Le dimanche 12 octobre 2014 10:04:04 Benson Margulies a écrit : One of Stephen's points is that the artifactId strings have an influence on the prose: a thing with artifactId maven-popcorn-plugin seems to lead, inexorably, towards 'The Maven Popcorn Plugin', which is bad. But, is 'popcorn-maven-plugin' really so much better? I do understand the logic that it seems to lead more towards 'The Popcore plugin _for_ Maven'. Still, it seems to me that enforcing one or the other in the plugin-plugin is not much of a substitute for the annoying job of looking at web pages and sending polite reminders. the idea behind artifact id check in m-plugin-p is that the reminder can be sent automatically: that's an easy first step I think that my point here is not 'leave the plugin-plugin' alone, but rather 'don't mistake changing it for an automated solution to the bulk of our trademark enforcement responsibilities.' +1 of course, automatic first step is just a first step real TM check is more subtle now is the artifact id detection pattern a good tool? IMHO, if someone takes time to write a little code with indexer, we can check in real world look at http://search.maven.org/#search%7Cga%7C1%7Cp%3A%22maven-plugin%22 write a report in dist-tool-plugin [1] that lists most recent plugins published to central (like previous link), displaying for each plugin: - groupId:artifactId:version, with warning if not following our convention - name and description, which can easily be reviewed by human eyes - url, to be able to review how the public site of the plugin is explaining things (harder to review, since require to follow the link to review) - emails, to ease engaging with the owner With such a report, it would be easier to do real TM check (ie look at plain english text), and know if automatic artifact id convention checking is a good TM issue detection pattern (even if it is guaranteed to be not 100% accurate) anybody interested in coding such a report? Regards, Hervé [1] https://builds.apache.org/view/M-R/view/Maven/job/dist-tool-plugin/site/ Whether those responsibilities are reasonable is a discussion for another time and place. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: Maven plugin naming pattern
Am 2014-10-12 um 00:30 schrieb Stephen Connolly: On Saturday, 11 October 2014, Michael Osipov micha...@apache.org wrote: Am 2014-10-11 um 21:28 schrieb Robert Munteanu: On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 10:23 PM, Michael Osipov micha...@apache.org wrote: Well said... I guess it is all about the order of the words: Maven X Plugin. It simply implies that is provided by the Maven team. Which is not. But is the order relevant in the artifactId or in the public display name? I think it's simpler to convince plugin maintainers to change the public display name ( Maven X Plugin - X Plugin for Maven ) rather than the artifactId. I do not hang on the specific order, a correct display name should suffices but Stephen was pretty obvious about trademark violation. Look, if we - as the PMC - want to open things up and allow other usages, that's fine by me. We should run it by trademarks@a.o and if they are fine with us opening the scope more then we put it to a vote and decide. Right now, what I recall, is we only voted ___ maven plugin as the form of use that we allowed for our mark. Projects own their marks, and are allowed to grant usage forms that they decide to grant. So far we have only granted one from, we can grant others, but it would need to be a conscious decision. I do not think that the display name is a real problem but just the artifact id name pattern. Restriction has been made by the PMC and not by trademarks@a.o, right? The question is, does the PMC insist on that pattern even if, as Benson has mentioned, the group id is different? Michael - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: Maven plugin naming pattern
On Sunday, 12 October 2014, Michael Osipov micha...@apache.org wrote: Am 2014-10-12 um 00:30 schrieb Stephen Connolly: On Saturday, 11 October 2014, Michael Osipov micha...@apache.org wrote: Am 2014-10-11 um 21:28 schrieb Robert Munteanu: On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 10:23 PM, Michael Osipov micha...@apache.org wrote: Well said... I guess it is all about the order of the words: Maven X Plugin. It simply implies that is provided by the Maven team. Which is not. But is the order relevant in the artifactId or in the public display name? I think it's simpler to convince plugin maintainers to change the public display name ( Maven X Plugin - X Plugin for Maven ) rather than the artifactId. I do not hang on the specific order, a correct display name should suffices but Stephen was pretty obvious about trademark violation. Look, if we - as the PMC - want to open things up and allow other usages, that's fine by me. We should run it by trademarks@a.o and if they are fine with us opening the scope more then we put it to a vote and decide. Right now, what I recall, is we only voted ___ maven plugin as the form of use that we allowed for our mark. Projects own their marks, and are allowed to grant usage forms that they decide to grant. So far we have only granted one from, we can grant others, but it would need to be a conscious decision. I do not think that the display name is a real problem but just the artifact id name pattern. Restriction has been made by the PMC and not by trademarks@a.o, right? It's actually the other way. The mark has to be protected and the PMC can say that certain allowed usage patterns will be permitted. So if the PMC ha done nothing then we'd have to issue CDs to anything that has maven in it and is related to our build tool in any way. We have said, if it is a plugin for maven, we will allow the usage of our mark provided you use the form ___ maven plugin Artifact is vs display name? I don't see a difference. Lots of people call plugins by their artifact id... If we don't protect our mark it ceases to be a mark... Now we *could* go to the board and say: we would like to release our mark is that ok and see what answer we get, but seriously, what do we gain? From my PoV, let's just turn on enforcement for people building maven plugins... If there is an outcry then we can vote to allow the other form of usage and roll another release The question is, does the PMC insist on that pattern even if, as Benson has mentioned, the group id is different? You must defend your mark. One of our marks is maven in connection with build toolchains. Group is irrelevant. Michael - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org -- Sent from my phone
Re: Maven plugin naming pattern
I like the way Mojo makes common sense explicit without trademark drama: http://mojo.codehaus.org/development/guidelines.html - Use the plugin-maven-plugin convention for the artifactId of any developed Maven plugin. - Use the [Project] Maven Plugin convention to name your plugin e.g. Acme Maven Plugin, unless [Project] reflects a trademark. In such case use either Mojo's Acme Maven Plugin or Mojo's Maven Plugin for Acme to clarify it is a plugin for this product and not by this product. like Michael said, with the same common sense: it is all about the order of the words: Maven X Plugin. It simply implies that is provided by the Maven team. Which is not. what about artifact id? if artifactId=maven-[project]-plugin, how can anybody expect that the name or description will be [Project] Maven Plugin? Common sense implies artifactId and name+description will use the same order Then IMHO, making maven-plugin-plugin enforce the artifact id is sufficient to help plugin owners discover that they are in wrong situation from a common sense perspective: no doubt they will be interested in improving their explanations to their users. And should we make core or enforcer check this? I'm not a fan: the plugin owner is in wrong situation, not the plugin user. Of course, if the plugin owner can't understand common sense, we can add a warning in core to help him understand the issue when his users will report him the warning, before we take it at trademark level: yes, we'll take it the hard/trademark way if the easy/common sense way can't make it. that's the way I feel it. Regards, Hervé Le dimanche 12 octobre 2014 09:43:08 Stephen Connolly a écrit : On Sunday, 12 October 2014, Michael Osipov micha...@apache.org wrote: Am 2014-10-12 um 00:30 schrieb Stephen Connolly: On Saturday, 11 October 2014, Michael Osipov micha...@apache.org wrote: Am 2014-10-11 um 21:28 schrieb Robert Munteanu: On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 10:23 PM, Michael Osipov micha...@apache.org wrote: Well said... I guess it is all about the order of the words: Maven X Plugin. It simply implies that is provided by the Maven team. Which is not. But is the order relevant in the artifactId or in the public display name? I think it's simpler to convince plugin maintainers to change the public display name ( Maven X Plugin - X Plugin for Maven ) rather than the artifactId. I do not hang on the specific order, a correct display name should suffices but Stephen was pretty obvious about trademark violation. Look, if we - as the PMC - want to open things up and allow other usages, that's fine by me. We should run it by trademarks@a.o and if they are fine with us opening the scope more then we put it to a vote and decide. Right now, what I recall, is we only voted ___ maven plugin as the form of use that we allowed for our mark. Projects own their marks, and are allowed to grant usage forms that they decide to grant. So far we have only granted one from, we can grant others, but it would need to be a conscious decision. I do not think that the display name is a real problem but just the artifact id name pattern. Restriction has been made by the PMC and not by trademarks@a.o, right? It's actually the other way. The mark has to be protected and the PMC can say that certain allowed usage patterns will be permitted. So if the PMC ha done nothing then we'd have to issue CDs to anything that has maven in it and is related to our build tool in any way. We have said, if it is a plugin for maven, we will allow the usage of our mark provided you use the form ___ maven plugin Artifact is vs display name? I don't see a difference. Lots of people call plugins by their artifact id... If we don't protect our mark it ceases to be a mark... Now we *could* go to the board and say: we would like to release our mark is that ok and see what answer we get, but seriously, what do we gain? From my PoV, let's just turn on enforcement for people building maven plugins... If there is an outcry then we can vote to allow the other form of usage and roll another release The question is, does the PMC insist on that pattern even if, as Benson has mentioned, the group id is different? You must defend your mark. One of our marks is maven in connection with build toolchains. Group is irrelevant. Michael - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: Maven plugin naming pattern
On Sunday, October 12, 2014, Hervé BOUTEMY herve.bout...@free.fr wrote: I like the way Mojo makes common sense explicit without trademark drama: http://mojo.codehaus.org/development/guidelines.html - Use the plugin-maven-plugin convention for the artifactId of any developed Maven plugin. - Use the [Project] Maven Plugin convention to name your plugin e.g. Acme Maven Plugin, unless [Project] reflects a trademark. In such case use either Mojo's Acme Maven Plugin or Mojo's Maven Plugin for Acme to clarify it is a plugin for this product and not by this product. That was the result of the great bind I found myself in trying to comply with the trade mark issues for Mojo's Apache Cassandra plugin for Apache Maven (or whatever dancing games I ended up with) So you'll not see a disagreement from me on mojo's practices ;-) like Michael said, with the same common sense: it is all about the order of the words: Maven X Plugin. It simply implies that is provided by the Maven team. Which is not. what about artifact id? if artifactId=maven-[project]-plugin, how can anybody expect that the name or description will be [Project] Maven Plugin? Common sense implies artifactId and name+description will use the same order Yep my pov too Then IMHO, making maven-plugin-plugin enforce the artifact id is sufficient to help plugin owners discover that they are in wrong situation from a common sense perspective: no doubt they will be interested in improving their explanations to their users. And should we make core or enforcer check this? I'm not a fan: the plugin owner is in wrong situation, not the plugin user. Exactly Of course, if the plugin owner can't understand common sense, we can add a warning in core to help him understand the issue when his users will report him the warning, before we take it at trademark level: yes, we'll take it the hard/trademark way if the easy/common sense way can't make it. that's the way I feel it. Regards, Hervé Le dimanche 12 octobre 2014 09:43:08 Stephen Connolly a écrit : On Sunday, 12 October 2014, Michael Osipov micha...@apache.org javascript:; wrote: Am 2014-10-12 um 00:30 schrieb Stephen Connolly: On Saturday, 11 October 2014, Michael Osipov micha...@apache.org javascript:; wrote: Am 2014-10-11 um 21:28 schrieb Robert Munteanu: On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 10:23 PM, Michael Osipov micha...@apache.org javascript:; wrote: Well said... I guess it is all about the order of the words: Maven X Plugin. It simply implies that is provided by the Maven team. Which is not. But is the order relevant in the artifactId or in the public display name? I think it's simpler to convince plugin maintainers to change the public display name ( Maven X Plugin - X Plugin for Maven ) rather than the artifactId. I do not hang on the specific order, a correct display name should suffices but Stephen was pretty obvious about trademark violation. Look, if we - as the PMC - want to open things up and allow other usages, that's fine by me. We should run it by trademarks@a.o and if they are fine with us opening the scope more then we put it to a vote and decide. Right now, what I recall, is we only voted ___ maven plugin as the form of use that we allowed for our mark. Projects own their marks, and are allowed to grant usage forms that they decide to grant. So far we have only granted one from, we can grant others, but it would need to be a conscious decision. I do not think that the display name is a real problem but just the artifact id name pattern. Restriction has been made by the PMC and not by trademarks@a.o, right? It's actually the other way. The mark has to be protected and the PMC can say that certain allowed usage patterns will be permitted. So if the PMC ha done nothing then we'd have to issue CDs to anything that has maven in it and is related to our build tool in any way. We have said, if it is a plugin for maven, we will allow the usage of our mark provided you use the form ___ maven plugin Artifact is vs display name? I don't see a difference. Lots of people call plugins by their artifact id... If we don't protect our mark it ceases to be a mark... Now we *could* go to the board and say: we would like to release our mark is that ok and see what answer we get, but seriously, what do we gain? From my PoV, let's just turn on enforcement for people building maven plugins... If there is an outcry then we can vote to allow the other form of usage and roll another release The question is, does the PMC insist on that pattern even if, as Benson has mentioned, the group id is different? You must defend your mark. One of our marks is maven in connection with build toolchains. Group is irrelevant. Michael -
Re: Maven plugin naming pattern
I think that I, amongst other people, are in danger of losing track of the trademark forest for the trees. I'm copying trademarks@, which is a closed list, but I don't think that this discussion has to be restricted to private@. If anyone on trademarks@ cares to correct me, please copy the Maven dev list. Trademarks are marks 'used in commerce'. When lawyers, and in the extreme case, judges, discuss trademarks, they are concerned with how marks get used in the relatively real world. Web pages that describe products are high on their list of concerns. XML files and source code? Not so much. So, the first job of trademark defense is to worry about how web pages (and books and such) use our mark. The top of that list is to ask two questions: Is the 'first use' a full reference to 'Apache Maven'? And is there an attribution of the trademark? As a PMC, if we are politely enforcing these two things, we've done most of our job. The next question is the question raised by plugins. When someone offers a product in commerce that is closely related to ours, what do they call it, and how do they describe it? Again, plain old English usage is a lot more important than geek-delight strings that go into XML files. If the web page has a title like 'Popcorn plugin for Apache Maven', we're good. I suspect that we're good even if the string that goes into the xml file is 'maven-maven-maven-maven-maven-popcorn-plugin'. It strikes me that we could make this good situation more likely by making sure that the site tooling puts headings and titles on pages, by default, that are consistent with that pattern. This conversation has been focussed on the question of the string that goes into the XML file. If we wanted to make that problem go away, we could discourage the use of the string 'maven' in plugin artifactIds altogether. That would push the conversation towards the prose and away from the XML. But I'm not sure it matters. One of Stephen's points is that the artifactId strings have an influence on the prose: a thing with artifactId maven-popcorn-plugin seems to lead, inexorably, towards 'The Maven Popcorn Plugin', which is bad. But, is 'popcorn-maven-plugin' really so much better? I do understand the logic that it seems to lead more towards 'The Popcore plugin _for_ Maven'. Still, it seems to me that enforcing one or the other in the plugin-plugin is not much of a substitute for the annoying job of looking at web pages and sending polite reminders. I think that my point here is not 'leave the plugin-plugin' alone, but rather 'don't mistake changing it for an automated solution to the bulk of our trademark enforcement responsibilities.' Whether those responsibilities are reasonable is a discussion for another time and place. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: Maven plugin naming pattern
I'm not a big fan of failing build in case of wrong plugin name but we need to help people do the work to update their naming one step forward could be to fail maven-plugin-plugin (not core yet) when generating plugin.xml for such a plugin: plugin owners would see they cannot continue to make release with wrong naming convention then failing at Maven core level could be done with Maven 4 WDYT? Regards, Hervé Le vendredi 10 octobre 2014 14:46:02 Stephen Connolly a écrit : On Friday, 10 October 2014, Michael Osipov 1983-01...@gmx.net wrote: Fine, I'd like to note that first: 1. Shouldn't we announce this publically on the users mailing list? Yes as part of announcing the maven-plugin-plugin release 2. I think that this deserves a major bump in plugin version. WDYT? I am fine with minor as we have 3 years+ of warning. If whoever steps up as release manager wants to call it a major bump, I'll not object Michael Gesendet: Freitag, 10. Oktober 2014 um 15:23 Uhr Von: Stephen Connolly stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com javascript:; An: Maven Developers List dev@maven.apache.org javascript:; Betreff: Re: Re: Re: Re: Maven plugin naming pattern That was the plan 3 years ago we decided to warn first and then switch on failing after a while... now is a good time, perhaps you could commit the change to fail the build? On 10 October 2014 13:48, Michael Osipov 1983-01...@gmx.net javascript:; wrote: Yes, resposibility isn't always good. Shouldn't simply make the build fail instead of log when such a collision happens? Michael Thankfully for you, you are not on the PMC... if you were on the PMC and you did such a search you would then have to go and send CDs. /me runs away from this thread in case I happen to be made aware of any trademark misuse ;-) On 10 October 2014 13:39, Stephen Connolly stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com javascript:; wrote: Yes On 10 October 2014 13:12, Michael Osipov 1983-01...@gmx.net javascript:; wrote: If you do a quick search on Central, you'll that even other Apache project don't adhere to this convention. Should they receive a CD too? Michael We just need to show best effort to defend our trademark... if we *see* anyone doing that then we have to send them CD letters... Note: my understanding is that we only have to send CD letters when we know somebody is abusing our mark... we don't necessarily have to go actively looking for people abusing our mark... just if we went looking and found any then we have to send them CDs quite quickly On 10 October 2014 12:45, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com javascript:; wrote: On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 7:42 AM, Stephen Connolly stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com javascript:; wrote: We, the PMC, agreed to allow permitted usage of the form ___-maven-plugin as that clarified that the plugin was a plugin for maven not one produced by maven Yea, I know, and I'm not opposed to making the tooling more obstreperous. I'm just warning people not to have high hopes of enforcement for anyone who chooses to hack the tooling and not cooperate. On 10 October 2014 12:40, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com javascript:; wrote: Keep in mind that what we have here is almost certainly a _convention_, not a point of trademark law. As I understand it, we'd as likely be laughed at for the suggestion that reversing the order of the components of a name leads to 'marketplace confusion' at the level at which trademarks can be enforced. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 7:25 AM, Michael Osipov 1983-01...@gmx.net javascript:; wrote: They should rename going forward. At some point (probably we could do so now) we will turn on enforcement in the maven-plugin-plugin. This will of course piss of a lot of people. Wouldn't it? There are, of course, several reasons why people can't: 1. Popularity of the old name 2. Technical reasons 3. Name collisions etc. Even if we enforce this, this should not happen before Maven 4 and should be added to the plugin dev center. Michael
Re: Maven plugin naming pattern
I would be perfectly happy to fail the builds of plugin owners as a first step. Make it so. I just want an additional JIRA created to emit a warning in core, to be scheduled in some future release (even as far out as 4.0), least we lose track of the next step. On Oct 11, 2014 1:30 AM, Hervé BOUTEMY herve.bout...@free.fr wrote: I'm not a big fan of failing build in case of wrong plugin name but we need to help people do the work to update their naming one step forward could be to fail maven-plugin-plugin (not core yet) when generating plugin.xml for such a plugin: plugin owners would see they cannot continue to make release with wrong naming convention then failing at Maven core level could be done with Maven 4 WDYT? Regards, Hervé Le vendredi 10 octobre 2014 14:46:02 Stephen Connolly a écrit : On Friday, 10 October 2014, Michael Osipov 1983-01...@gmx.net wrote: Fine, I'd like to note that first: 1. Shouldn't we announce this publically on the users mailing list? Yes as part of announcing the maven-plugin-plugin release 2. I think that this deserves a major bump in plugin version. WDYT? I am fine with minor as we have 3 years+ of warning. If whoever steps up as release manager wants to call it a major bump, I'll not object Michael Gesendet: Freitag, 10. Oktober 2014 um 15:23 Uhr Von: Stephen Connolly stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com javascript:; An: Maven Developers List dev@maven.apache.org javascript:; Betreff: Re: Re: Re: Re: Maven plugin naming pattern That was the plan 3 years ago we decided to warn first and then switch on failing after a while... now is a good time, perhaps you could commit the change to fail the build? On 10 October 2014 13:48, Michael Osipov 1983-01...@gmx.net javascript:; wrote: Yes, resposibility isn't always good. Shouldn't simply make the build fail instead of log when such a collision happens? Michael Thankfully for you, you are not on the PMC... if you were on the PMC and you did such a search you would then have to go and send CDs. /me runs away from this thread in case I happen to be made aware of any trademark misuse ;-) On 10 October 2014 13:39, Stephen Connolly stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com javascript:; wrote: Yes On 10 October 2014 13:12, Michael Osipov 1983-01...@gmx.net javascript:; wrote: If you do a quick search on Central, you'll that even other Apache project don't adhere to this convention. Should they receive a CD too? Michael We just need to show best effort to defend our trademark... if we *see* anyone doing that then we have to send them CD letters... Note: my understanding is that we only have to send CD letters when we know somebody is abusing our mark... we don't necessarily have to go actively looking for people abusing our mark... just if we went looking and found any then we have to send them CDs quite quickly On 10 October 2014 12:45, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com javascript:; wrote: On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 7:42 AM, Stephen Connolly stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com javascript:; wrote: We, the PMC, agreed to allow permitted usage of the form ___-maven-plugin as that clarified that the plugin was a plugin for maven not one produced by maven Yea, I know, and I'm not opposed to making the tooling more obstreperous. I'm just warning people not to have high hopes of enforcement for anyone who chooses to hack the tooling and not cooperate. On 10 October 2014 12:40, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com javascript:; wrote: Keep in mind that what we have here is almost certainly a _convention_, not a point of trademark law. As I understand it, we'd as likely be laughed at for the suggestion that reversing the order of the components of a name leads to 'marketplace confusion' at the level at which trademarks can be enforced. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 7:25 AM, Michael Osipov 1983-01...@gmx.net javascript:; wrote: They should rename going forward. At some point (probably we could do so now) we will turn on enforcement in the maven-plugin-plugin. This will of course piss
[RESULT] Re: Maven plugin naming pattern
I'd like to sum up the consensus we have hopefully reached already: 1. Make maven-plugin-plugin fail the build if the plugin being build does not adhere to our convention (next minor version). 2. Warn a user when a build is performed with a plugin which violates the naming convention, just like with deps w/o versions. 3. Create an appropriate enforcer rule. 4. Break build with Maven 4 if an illegally named plugin is used Does that fit? Michael - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: [RESULT] Re: Maven plugin naming pattern
I am very tempted to reopen the trademark question here. It seems to me that this whole business ignores the groupId component of the name, which distinguishes pretty clearly, and I would argue is enough to avoid trademark dillution. On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Michael Osipov micha...@apache.org wrote: I'd like to sum up the consensus we have hopefully reached already: 1. Make maven-plugin-plugin fail the build if the plugin being build does not adhere to our convention (next minor version). 2. Warn a user when a build is performed with a plugin which violates the naming convention, just like with deps w/o versions. 3. Create an appropriate enforcer rule. 4. Break build with Maven 4 if an illegally named plugin is used Does that fit? Michael - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: [RESULT] Re: Maven plugin naming pattern
Am 2014-10-11 um 21:03 schrieb Benson Margulies: I am very tempted to reopen the trademark question here. It seems to me that this whole business ignores the groupId component of the name, which distinguishes pretty clearly, and I would argue is enough to avoid trademark dillution. Well said... I guess it is all about the order of the words: Maven X Plugin. It simply implies that is provided by the Maven team. Which is not. Michael - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: [RESULT] Re: Maven plugin naming pattern
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 10:23 PM, Michael Osipov micha...@apache.org wrote: Well said... I guess it is all about the order of the words: Maven X Plugin. It simply implies that is provided by the Maven team. Which is not. But is the order relevant in the artifactId or in the public display name? I think it's simpler to convince plugin maintainers to change the public display name ( Maven X Plugin - X Plugin for Maven ) rather than the artifactId. Robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: [RESULT] Re: Maven plugin naming pattern
Am 2014-10-11 um 21:28 schrieb Robert Munteanu: On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 10:23 PM, Michael Osipov micha...@apache.org wrote: Well said... I guess it is all about the order of the words: Maven X Plugin. It simply implies that is provided by the Maven team. Which is not. But is the order relevant in the artifactId or in the public display name? I think it's simpler to convince plugin maintainers to change the public display name ( Maven X Plugin - X Plugin for Maven ) rather than the artifactId. I do not hang on the specific order, a correct display name should suffices but Stephen was pretty obvious about trademark violation. Michael - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: Maven plugin naming pattern
On Saturday, 11 October 2014, Michael Osipov micha...@apache.org wrote: Am 2014-10-11 um 21:28 schrieb Robert Munteanu: On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 10:23 PM, Michael Osipov micha...@apache.org wrote: Well said... I guess it is all about the order of the words: Maven X Plugin. It simply implies that is provided by the Maven team. Which is not. But is the order relevant in the artifactId or in the public display name? I think it's simpler to convince plugin maintainers to change the public display name ( Maven X Plugin - X Plugin for Maven ) rather than the artifactId. I do not hang on the specific order, a correct display name should suffices but Stephen was pretty obvious about trademark violation. Look, if we - as the PMC - want to open things up and allow other usages, that's fine by me. We should run it by trademarks@a.o and if they are fine with us opening the scope more then we put it to a vote and decide. Right now, what I recall, is we only voted ___ maven plugin as the form of use that we allowed for our mark. Projects own their marks, and are allowed to grant usage forms that they decide to grant. So far we have only granted one from, we can grant others, but it would need to be a conscious decision. - Stephen Michael - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org -- Sent from my phone
Re: Maven plugin naming pattern
They should rename going forward. At some point (probably we could do so now) we will turn on enforcement in the maven-plugin-plugin. If they have not renamed then they will be stuck with the older tooling. On 10 October 2014 12:08, Michael Osipov 1983-01...@gmx.net wrote: Hi folks, how do we actually proceed with third-party plugins which do not comply to our naming pattern [1]? Given that a plugin has been created before this document has beeen first published 2013-01-02. Should they simply add a disclaimer for legacy reasons? What about plugins on Central created after that date? Michael [1] http://maven.apache.org/guides/plugin/guide-java-plugin-development.html - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: Re: Maven plugin naming pattern
They should rename going forward. At some point (probably we could do so now) we will turn on enforcement in the maven-plugin-plugin. This will of course piss of a lot of people. Wouldn't it? There are, of course, several reasons why people can't: 1. Popularity of the old name 2. Technical reasons 3. Name collisions etc. Even if we enforce this, this should not happen before Maven 4 and should be added to the plugin dev center. Michael - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: Re: Maven plugin naming pattern
1. We sent an announcement a long time ago. 2. We switched the maven-plugin-plugin to a warning a good while ago: https://github.com/apache/maven-plugin-tools/commit/f88a58cecb4599e70b8fecf8b13d77d5e084be9c If people have ignored that warning for three years, then we have done all we can. The PMC has a duty to defend our trademarks. We have been very lenient in its defence while letting people know that it is our mark. On 10 October 2014 12:25, Michael Osipov 1983-01...@gmx.net wrote: They should rename going forward. At some point (probably we could do so now) we will turn on enforcement in the maven-plugin-plugin. This will of course piss of a lot of people. Wouldn't it? There are, of course, several reasons why people can't: 1. Popularity of the old name 2. Technical reasons 3. Name collisions etc. Even if we enforce this, this should not happen before Maven 4 and should be added to the plugin dev center. Michael - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: Re: Maven plugin naming pattern
Keep in mind that what we have here is almost certainly a _convention_, not a point of trademark law. As I understand it, we'd as likely be laughed at for the suggestion that reversing the order of the components of a name leads to 'marketplace confusion' at the level at which trademarks can be enforced. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 7:25 AM, Michael Osipov 1983-01...@gmx.net wrote: They should rename going forward. At some point (probably we could do so now) we will turn on enforcement in the maven-plugin-plugin. This will of course piss of a lot of people. Wouldn't it? There are, of course, several reasons why people can't: 1. Popularity of the old name 2. Technical reasons 3. Name collisions etc. Even if we enforce this, this should not happen before Maven 4 and should be added to the plugin dev center. Michael - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: Re: Maven plugin naming pattern
We, the PMC, agreed to allow permitted usage of the form ___-maven-plugin as that clarified that the plugin was a plugin for maven not one produced by maven On 10 October 2014 12:40, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: Keep in mind that what we have here is almost certainly a _convention_, not a point of trademark law. As I understand it, we'd as likely be laughed at for the suggestion that reversing the order of the components of a name leads to 'marketplace confusion' at the level at which trademarks can be enforced. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 7:25 AM, Michael Osipov 1983-01...@gmx.net wrote: They should rename going forward. At some point (probably we could do so now) we will turn on enforcement in the maven-plugin-plugin. This will of course piss of a lot of people. Wouldn't it? There are, of course, several reasons why people can't: 1. Popularity of the old name 2. Technical reasons 3. Name collisions etc. Even if we enforce this, this should not happen before Maven 4 and should be added to the plugin dev center. Michael - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: Re: Maven plugin naming pattern
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 7:42 AM, Stephen Connolly stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com wrote: We, the PMC, agreed to allow permitted usage of the form ___-maven-plugin as that clarified that the plugin was a plugin for maven not one produced by maven Yea, I know, and I'm not opposed to making the tooling more obstreperous. I'm just warning people not to have high hopes of enforcement for anyone who chooses to hack the tooling and not cooperate. On 10 October 2014 12:40, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: Keep in mind that what we have here is almost certainly a _convention_, not a point of trademark law. As I understand it, we'd as likely be laughed at for the suggestion that reversing the order of the components of a name leads to 'marketplace confusion' at the level at which trademarks can be enforced. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 7:25 AM, Michael Osipov 1983-01...@gmx.net wrote: They should rename going forward. At some point (probably we could do so now) we will turn on enforcement in the maven-plugin-plugin. This will of course piss of a lot of people. Wouldn't it? There are, of course, several reasons why people can't: 1. Popularity of the old name 2. Technical reasons 3. Name collisions etc. Even if we enforce this, this should not happen before Maven 4 and should be added to the plugin dev center. Michael - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: Re: Maven plugin naming pattern
We just need to show best effort to defend our trademark... if we *see* anyone doing that then we have to send them CD letters... Note: my understanding is that we only have to send CD letters when we know somebody is abusing our mark... we don't necessarily have to go actively looking for people abusing our mark... just if we went looking and found any then we have to send them CDs quite quickly On 10 October 2014 12:45, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 7:42 AM, Stephen Connolly stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com wrote: We, the PMC, agreed to allow permitted usage of the form ___-maven-plugin as that clarified that the plugin was a plugin for maven not one produced by maven Yea, I know, and I'm not opposed to making the tooling more obstreperous. I'm just warning people not to have high hopes of enforcement for anyone who chooses to hack the tooling and not cooperate. On 10 October 2014 12:40, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: Keep in mind that what we have here is almost certainly a _convention_, not a point of trademark law. As I understand it, we'd as likely be laughed at for the suggestion that reversing the order of the components of a name leads to 'marketplace confusion' at the level at which trademarks can be enforced. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 7:25 AM, Michael Osipov 1983-01...@gmx.net wrote: They should rename going forward. At some point (probably we could do so now) we will turn on enforcement in the maven-plugin-plugin. This will of course piss of a lot of people. Wouldn't it? There are, of course, several reasons why people can't: 1. Popularity of the old name 2. Technical reasons 3. Name collisions etc. Even if we enforce this, this should not happen before Maven 4 and should be added to the plugin dev center. Michael - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: Maven plugin naming pattern
Hi, On 10/10/14 1:25 PM, Michael Osipov wrote: They should rename going forward. At some point (probably we could do so now) we will turn on enforcement in the maven-plugin-plugin. This will of course piss of a lot of people. Wouldn't it? There are, of course, several reasons why people can't: 1. Popularity of the old name That's no reason...a good announcment of the maintainers should work...and the rules are existing a long time 2. Technical reasons What kind of technical reasons ? Just change it... 3. Name collisions Same as under 1. just make a good announcment of the name change and that's it... This is even harder depending how the collisions will happen...with Apache Maven Plugins ? If yes than it should be changed asap... Unfortunately i don't see a real problem with this... etc. Even if we enforce this, this should not happen before Maven 4 and should be added to the plugin dev center. Unfortunately i have a different point of view. The web site says: ..strongly discouraged since it's a reserved naming pattern for official Apache Maven plugins maintained by the Apache Maven team ... We should send a CD letter if we will become aware of it but not actively looking for such things Michael - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org Kind regards Karl-Heinz Marbaise - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: Re: Re: Maven plugin naming pattern
If you do a quick search on Central, you'll that even other Apache project don't adhere to this convention. Should they receive a CD too? Michael We just need to show best effort to defend our trademark... if we *see* anyone doing that then we have to send them CD letters... Note: my understanding is that we only have to send CD letters when we know somebody is abusing our mark... we don't necessarily have to go actively looking for people abusing our mark... just if we went looking and found any then we have to send them CDs quite quickly On 10 October 2014 12:45, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 7:42 AM, Stephen Connolly stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com wrote: We, the PMC, agreed to allow permitted usage of the form ___-maven-plugin as that clarified that the plugin was a plugin for maven not one produced by maven Yea, I know, and I'm not opposed to making the tooling more obstreperous. I'm just warning people not to have high hopes of enforcement for anyone who chooses to hack the tooling and not cooperate. On 10 October 2014 12:40, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: Keep in mind that what we have here is almost certainly a _convention_, not a point of trademark law. As I understand it, we'd as likely be laughed at for the suggestion that reversing the order of the components of a name leads to 'marketplace confusion' at the level at which trademarks can be enforced. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 7:25 AM, Michael Osipov 1983-01...@gmx.net wrote: They should rename going forward. At some point (probably we could do so now) we will turn on enforcement in the maven-plugin-plugin. This will of course piss of a lot of people. Wouldn't it? There are, of course, several reasons why people can't: 1. Popularity of the old name 2. Technical reasons 3. Name collisions etc. Even if we enforce this, this should not happen before Maven 4 and should be added to the plugin dev center. Michael - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: Re: Re: Maven plugin naming pattern
Yes On 10 October 2014 13:12, Michael Osipov 1983-01...@gmx.net wrote: If you do a quick search on Central, you'll that even other Apache project don't adhere to this convention. Should they receive a CD too? Michael We just need to show best effort to defend our trademark... if we *see* anyone doing that then we have to send them CD letters... Note: my understanding is that we only have to send CD letters when we know somebody is abusing our mark... we don't necessarily have to go actively looking for people abusing our mark... just if we went looking and found any then we have to send them CDs quite quickly On 10 October 2014 12:45, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 7:42 AM, Stephen Connolly stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com wrote: We, the PMC, agreed to allow permitted usage of the form ___-maven-plugin as that clarified that the plugin was a plugin for maven not one produced by maven Yea, I know, and I'm not opposed to making the tooling more obstreperous. I'm just warning people not to have high hopes of enforcement for anyone who chooses to hack the tooling and not cooperate. On 10 October 2014 12:40, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: Keep in mind that what we have here is almost certainly a _convention_, not a point of trademark law. As I understand it, we'd as likely be laughed at for the suggestion that reversing the order of the components of a name leads to 'marketplace confusion' at the level at which trademarks can be enforced. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 7:25 AM, Michael Osipov 1983-01...@gmx.net wrote: They should rename going forward. At some point (probably we could do so now) we will turn on enforcement in the maven-plugin-plugin. This will of course piss of a lot of people. Wouldn't it? There are, of course, several reasons why people can't: 1. Popularity of the old name 2. Technical reasons 3. Name collisions etc. Even if we enforce this, this should not happen before Maven 4 and should be added to the plugin dev center. Michael - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: Re: Re: Maven plugin naming pattern
Thankfully for you, you are not on the PMC... if you were on the PMC and you did such a search you would then have to go and send CDs. /me runs away from this thread in case I happen to be made aware of any trademark misuse ;-) On 10 October 2014 13:39, Stephen Connolly stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com wrote: Yes On 10 October 2014 13:12, Michael Osipov 1983-01...@gmx.net wrote: If you do a quick search on Central, you'll that even other Apache project don't adhere to this convention. Should they receive a CD too? Michael We just need to show best effort to defend our trademark... if we *see* anyone doing that then we have to send them CD letters... Note: my understanding is that we only have to send CD letters when we know somebody is abusing our mark... we don't necessarily have to go actively looking for people abusing our mark... just if we went looking and found any then we have to send them CDs quite quickly On 10 October 2014 12:45, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 7:42 AM, Stephen Connolly stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com wrote: We, the PMC, agreed to allow permitted usage of the form ___-maven-plugin as that clarified that the plugin was a plugin for maven not one produced by maven Yea, I know, and I'm not opposed to making the tooling more obstreperous. I'm just warning people not to have high hopes of enforcement for anyone who chooses to hack the tooling and not cooperate. On 10 October 2014 12:40, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: Keep in mind that what we have here is almost certainly a _convention_, not a point of trademark law. As I understand it, we'd as likely be laughed at for the suggestion that reversing the order of the components of a name leads to 'marketplace confusion' at the level at which trademarks can be enforced. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 7:25 AM, Michael Osipov 1983-01...@gmx.net wrote: They should rename going forward. At some point (probably we could do so now) we will turn on enforcement in the maven-plugin-plugin. This will of course piss of a lot of people. Wouldn't it? There are, of course, several reasons why people can't: 1. Popularity of the old name 2. Technical reasons 3. Name collisions etc. Even if we enforce this, this should not happen before Maven 4 and should be added to the plugin dev center. Michael - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: Re: Re: Re: Maven plugin naming pattern
Yes, resposibility isn't always good. Shouldn't simply make the build fail instead of log when such a collision happens? Michael Thankfully for you, you are not on the PMC... if you were on the PMC and you did such a search you would then have to go and send CDs. /me runs away from this thread in case I happen to be made aware of any trademark misuse ;-) On 10 October 2014 13:39, Stephen Connolly stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com wrote: Yes On 10 October 2014 13:12, Michael Osipov 1983-01...@gmx.net wrote: If you do a quick search on Central, you'll that even other Apache project don't adhere to this convention. Should they receive a CD too? Michael We just need to show best effort to defend our trademark... if we *see* anyone doing that then we have to send them CD letters... Note: my understanding is that we only have to send CD letters when we know somebody is abusing our mark... we don't necessarily have to go actively looking for people abusing our mark... just if we went looking and found any then we have to send them CDs quite quickly On 10 October 2014 12:45, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 7:42 AM, Stephen Connolly stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com wrote: We, the PMC, agreed to allow permitted usage of the form ___-maven-plugin as that clarified that the plugin was a plugin for maven not one produced by maven Yea, I know, and I'm not opposed to making the tooling more obstreperous. I'm just warning people not to have high hopes of enforcement for anyone who chooses to hack the tooling and not cooperate. On 10 October 2014 12:40, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: Keep in mind that what we have here is almost certainly a _convention_, not a point of trademark law. As I understand it, we'd as likely be laughed at for the suggestion that reversing the order of the components of a name leads to 'marketplace confusion' at the level at which trademarks can be enforced. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 7:25 AM, Michael Osipov 1983-01...@gmx.net wrote: They should rename going forward. At some point (probably we could do so now) we will turn on enforcement in the maven-plugin-plugin. This will of course piss of a lot of people. Wouldn't it? There are, of course, several reasons why people can't: 1. Popularity of the old name 2. Technical reasons 3. Name collisions etc. Even if we enforce this, this should not happen before Maven 4 and should be added to the plugin dev center. Michael - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: Re: Re: Re: Maven plugin naming pattern
That was the plan 3 years ago we decided to warn first and then switch on failing after a while... now is a good time, perhaps you could commit the change to fail the build? On 10 October 2014 13:48, Michael Osipov 1983-01...@gmx.net wrote: Yes, resposibility isn't always good. Shouldn't simply make the build fail instead of log when such a collision happens? Michael Thankfully for you, you are not on the PMC... if you were on the PMC and you did such a search you would then have to go and send CDs. /me runs away from this thread in case I happen to be made aware of any trademark misuse ;-) On 10 October 2014 13:39, Stephen Connolly stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com wrote: Yes On 10 October 2014 13:12, Michael Osipov 1983-01...@gmx.net wrote: If you do a quick search on Central, you'll that even other Apache project don't adhere to this convention. Should they receive a CD too? Michael We just need to show best effort to defend our trademark... if we *see* anyone doing that then we have to send them CD letters... Note: my understanding is that we only have to send CD letters when we know somebody is abusing our mark... we don't necessarily have to go actively looking for people abusing our mark... just if we went looking and found any then we have to send them CDs quite quickly On 10 October 2014 12:45, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 7:42 AM, Stephen Connolly stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com wrote: We, the PMC, agreed to allow permitted usage of the form ___-maven-plugin as that clarified that the plugin was a plugin for maven not one produced by maven Yea, I know, and I'm not opposed to making the tooling more obstreperous. I'm just warning people not to have high hopes of enforcement for anyone who chooses to hack the tooling and not cooperate. On 10 October 2014 12:40, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: Keep in mind that what we have here is almost certainly a _convention_, not a point of trademark law. As I understand it, we'd as likely be laughed at for the suggestion that reversing the order of the components of a name leads to 'marketplace confusion' at the level at which trademarks can be enforced. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 7:25 AM, Michael Osipov 1983-01...@gmx.net wrote: They should rename going forward. At some point (probably we could do so now) we will turn on enforcement in the maven-plugin-plugin. This will of course piss of a lot of people. Wouldn't it? There are, of course, several reasons why people can't: 1. Popularity of the old name 2. Technical reasons 3. Name collisions etc. Even if we enforce this, this should not happen before Maven 4 and should be added to the plugin dev center. Michael - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Maven plugin naming pattern
Fine, I'd like to note that first: 1. Shouldn't we announce this publically on the users mailing list? 2. I think that this deserves a major bump in plugin version. WDYT? Michael Gesendet: Freitag, 10. Oktober 2014 um 15:23 Uhr Von: Stephen Connolly stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com An: Maven Developers List dev@maven.apache.org Betreff: Re: Re: Re: Re: Maven plugin naming pattern That was the plan 3 years ago we decided to warn first and then switch on failing after a while... now is a good time, perhaps you could commit the change to fail the build? On 10 October 2014 13:48, Michael Osipov 1983-01...@gmx.net wrote: Yes, resposibility isn't always good. Shouldn't simply make the build fail instead of log when such a collision happens? Michael Thankfully for you, you are not on the PMC... if you were on the PMC and you did such a search you would then have to go and send CDs. /me runs away from this thread in case I happen to be made aware of any trademark misuse ;-) On 10 October 2014 13:39, Stephen Connolly stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com wrote: Yes On 10 October 2014 13:12, Michael Osipov 1983-01...@gmx.net wrote: If you do a quick search on Central, you'll that even other Apache project don't adhere to this convention. Should they receive a CD too? Michael We just need to show best effort to defend our trademark... if we *see* anyone doing that then we have to send them CD letters... Note: my understanding is that we only have to send CD letters when we know somebody is abusing our mark... we don't necessarily have to go actively looking for people abusing our mark... just if we went looking and found any then we have to send them CDs quite quickly On 10 October 2014 12:45, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 7:42 AM, Stephen Connolly stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com wrote: We, the PMC, agreed to allow permitted usage of the form ___-maven-plugin as that clarified that the plugin was a plugin for maven not one produced by maven Yea, I know, and I'm not opposed to making the tooling more obstreperous. I'm just warning people not to have high hopes of enforcement for anyone who chooses to hack the tooling and not cooperate. On 10 October 2014 12:40, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: Keep in mind that what we have here is almost certainly a _convention_, not a point of trademark law. As I understand it, we'd as likely be laughed at for the suggestion that reversing the order of the components of a name leads to 'marketplace confusion' at the level at which trademarks can be enforced. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 7:25 AM, Michael Osipov 1983-01...@gmx.net wrote: They should rename going forward. At some point (probably we could do so now) we will turn on enforcement in the maven-plugin-plugin. This will of course piss of a lot of people. Wouldn't it? There are, of course, several reasons why people can't: 1. Popularity of the old name 2. Technical reasons 3. Name collisions etc. Even if we enforce this, this should not happen before Maven 4 and should be added to the plugin dev center. Michael - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Maven plugin naming pattern
I would prefer this should be part of Maven Core's warning system. If the plugin starts with maven- and it's not an org.apache.maven.plugins group, then we should spit out the error. I am not sure enforcer is the right place for this rule; this is more of a global problem than a suggestion for good practice. Cheers, Paul On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 8:30 AM, Michael Osipov 1983-01...@gmx.net wrote: Fine, I'd like to note that first: 1. Shouldn't we announce this publically on the users mailing list? 2. I think that this deserves a major bump in plugin version. WDYT? Michael Gesendet: Freitag, 10. Oktober 2014 um 15:23 Uhr Von: Stephen Connolly stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com An: Maven Developers List dev@maven.apache.org Betreff: Re: Re: Re: Re: Maven plugin naming pattern That was the plan 3 years ago we decided to warn first and then switch on failing after a while... now is a good time, perhaps you could commit the change to fail the build? On 10 October 2014 13:48, Michael Osipov 1983-01...@gmx.net wrote: Yes, resposibility isn't always good. Shouldn't simply make the build fail instead of log when such a collision happens? Michael Thankfully for you, you are not on the PMC... if you were on the PMC and you did such a search you would then have to go and send CDs. /me runs away from this thread in case I happen to be made aware of any trademark misuse ;-) On 10 October 2014 13:39, Stephen Connolly stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com wrote: Yes On 10 October 2014 13:12, Michael Osipov 1983-01...@gmx.net wrote: If you do a quick search on Central, you'll that even other Apache project don't adhere to this convention. Should they receive a CD too? Michael We just need to show best effort to defend our trademark... if we *see* anyone doing that then we have to send them CD letters... Note: my understanding is that we only have to send CD letters when we know somebody is abusing our mark... we don't necessarily have to go actively looking for people abusing our mark... just if we went looking and found any then we have to send them CDs quite quickly On 10 October 2014 12:45, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 7:42 AM, Stephen Connolly stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com wrote: We, the PMC, agreed to allow permitted usage of the form ___-maven-plugin as that clarified that the plugin was a plugin for maven not one produced by maven Yea, I know, and I'm not opposed to making the tooling more obstreperous. I'm just warning people not to have high hopes of enforcement for anyone who chooses to hack the tooling and not cooperate. On 10 October 2014 12:40, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: Keep in mind that what we have here is almost certainly a _convention_, not a point of trademark law. As I understand it, we'd as likely be laughed at for the suggestion that reversing the order of the components of a name leads to 'marketplace confusion' at the level at which trademarks can be enforced. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 7:25 AM, Michael Osipov 1983-01...@gmx.net wrote: They should rename going forward. At some point (probably we could do so now) we will turn on enforcement in the maven-plugin-plugin. This will of course piss of a lot of people. Wouldn't it? There are, of course, several reasons why people can't: 1. Popularity of the old name 2. Technical reasons 3. Name collisions etc. Even if we enforce this, this should not happen before Maven 4 and should be added to the plugin dev center. Michael - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
Re: Maven plugin naming pattern
On Friday, 10 October 2014, Michael Osipov 1983-01...@gmx.net wrote: Fine, I'd like to note that first: 1. Shouldn't we announce this publically on the users mailing list? Yes as part of announcing the maven-plugin-plugin release 2. I think that this deserves a major bump in plugin version. WDYT? I am fine with minor as we have 3 years+ of warning. If whoever steps up as release manager wants to call it a major bump, I'll not object Michael Gesendet: Freitag, 10. Oktober 2014 um 15:23 Uhr Von: Stephen Connolly stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com javascript:; An: Maven Developers List dev@maven.apache.org javascript:; Betreff: Re: Re: Re: Re: Maven plugin naming pattern That was the plan 3 years ago we decided to warn first and then switch on failing after a while... now is a good time, perhaps you could commit the change to fail the build? On 10 October 2014 13:48, Michael Osipov 1983-01...@gmx.net javascript:; wrote: Yes, resposibility isn't always good. Shouldn't simply make the build fail instead of log when such a collision happens? Michael Thankfully for you, you are not on the PMC... if you were on the PMC and you did such a search you would then have to go and send CDs. /me runs away from this thread in case I happen to be made aware of any trademark misuse ;-) On 10 October 2014 13:39, Stephen Connolly stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com javascript:; wrote: Yes On 10 October 2014 13:12, Michael Osipov 1983-01...@gmx.net javascript:; wrote: If you do a quick search on Central, you'll that even other Apache project don't adhere to this convention. Should they receive a CD too? Michael We just need to show best effort to defend our trademark... if we *see* anyone doing that then we have to send them CD letters... Note: my understanding is that we only have to send CD letters when we know somebody is abusing our mark... we don't necessarily have to go actively looking for people abusing our mark... just if we went looking and found any then we have to send them CDs quite quickly On 10 October 2014 12:45, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com javascript:; wrote: On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 7:42 AM, Stephen Connolly stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com javascript:; wrote: We, the PMC, agreed to allow permitted usage of the form ___-maven-plugin as that clarified that the plugin was a plugin for maven not one produced by maven Yea, I know, and I'm not opposed to making the tooling more obstreperous. I'm just warning people not to have high hopes of enforcement for anyone who chooses to hack the tooling and not cooperate. On 10 October 2014 12:40, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com javascript:; wrote: Keep in mind that what we have here is almost certainly a _convention_, not a point of trademark law. As I understand it, we'd as likely be laughed at for the suggestion that reversing the order of the components of a name leads to 'marketplace confusion' at the level at which trademarks can be enforced. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 7:25 AM, Michael Osipov 1983-01...@gmx.net javascript:; wrote: They should rename going forward. At some point (probably we could do so now) we will turn on enforcement in the maven-plugin-plugin. This will of course piss of a lot of people. Wouldn't it? There are, of course, several reasons why people can't: 1. Popularity of the old name 2. Technical reasons 3. Name collisions etc. Even if we enforce this, this should not happen before Maven 4 and should be added to the plugin dev center. Michael - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org javascript:; For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org javascript:; - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org javascript:; For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org javascript:; - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org javascript:; For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org javascript
Re: Maven plugin naming pattern
Hi, On 10/10/14 3:41 PM, Paul Benedict wrote: I would prefer this should be part of Maven Core's warning system. If the plugin starts with maven- and it's not an org.apache.maven.plugins group, then we should spit out the error. I am not sure enforcer is the right place for this rule; this is more of a global problem than a suggestion for good practice. In my opinion this should be part of Maven Core (Maven itself within the next version 3.2.4 ?) otherwise we can't be sure that those warnings (possible breaks) will ever happen... If you you use enforcer you can of course create such a rule which is really simple but if you don't use that rule .. I would suggest to create for Maven 3.2.4 warning and for 3.3.X it should create an error and fail the build... Cheers, Paul On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 8:30 AM, Michael Osipov 1983-01...@gmx.net wrote: Fine, I'd like to note that first: 1. Shouldn't we announce this publically on the users mailing list? 2. I think that this deserves a major bump in plugin version. WDYT? Michael Gesendet: Freitag, 10. Oktober 2014 um 15:23 Uhr Von: Stephen Connolly stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com An: Maven Developers List dev@maven.apache.org Betreff: Re: Re: Re: Re: Maven plugin naming pattern That was the plan 3 years ago we decided to warn first and then switch on failing after a while... now is a good time, perhaps you could commit the change to fail the build? On 10 October 2014 13:48, Michael Osipov 1983-01...@gmx.net wrote: Yes, resposibility isn't always good. Shouldn't simply make the build fail instead of log when such a collision happens? Michael Thankfully for you, you are not on the PMC... if you were on the PMC and you did such a search you would then have to go and send CDs. /me runs away from this thread in case I happen to be made aware of any trademark misuse ;-) On 10 October 2014 13:39, Stephen Connolly stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com wrote: Yes On 10 October 2014 13:12, Michael Osipov 1983-01...@gmx.net wrote: If you do a quick search on Central, you'll that even other Apache project don't adhere to this convention. Should they receive a CD too? Michael We just need to show best effort to defend our trademark... if we *see* anyone doing that then we have to send them CD letters... Note: my understanding is that we only have to send CD letters when we know somebody is abusing our mark... we don't necessarily have to go actively looking for people abusing our mark... just if we went looking and found any then we have to send them CDs quite quickly On 10 October 2014 12:45, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 7:42 AM, Stephen Connolly stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com wrote: We, the PMC, agreed to allow permitted usage of the form ___-maven-plugin as that clarified that the plugin was a plugin for maven not one produced by maven Yea, I know, and I'm not opposed to making the tooling more obstreperous. I'm just warning people not to have high hopes of enforcement for anyone who chooses to hack the tooling and not cooperate. On 10 October 2014 12:40, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: Keep in mind that what we have here is almost certainly a _convention_, not a point of trademark law. As I understand it, we'd as likely be laughed at for the suggestion that reversing the order of the components of a name leads to 'marketplace confusion' at the level at which trademarks can be enforced. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 7:25 AM, Michael Osipov 1983-01...@gmx.net wrote: They should rename going forward. At some point (probably we could do so now) we will turn on enforcement in the maven-plugin-plugin. This will of course piss of a lot of people. Wouldn't it? There are, of course, several reasons why people can't: 1. Popularity of the old name 2. Technical reasons 3. Name collisions etc. Even if we enforce this, this should not happen before Maven 4 and should be added to the plugin dev center. Michael Kind regards Karl Heinz Marbaise - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: Re: Maven plugin naming pattern
Hi, On 10/10/14 3:41 PM, Paul Benedict wrote: I would prefer this should be part of Maven Core's warning system. If the plugin starts with maven- and it's not an org.apache.maven.plugins group, then we should spit out the error. I am not sure enforcer is the right place for this rule; this is more of a global problem than a suggestion for good practice. In my opinion this should be part of Maven Core (Maven itself within the next version 3.2.4 ?) otherwise we can't be sure that those warnings (possible breaks) will ever happen... Located in the lifecycle phase of 'maven-plugin'? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: Maven plugin naming pattern
Am 10/10/14 14:00, schrieb Karl Heinz Marbaise: Hi, On 10/10/14 1:25 PM, Michael Osipov wrote: They should rename going forward. At some point (probably we could do so now) we will turn on enforcement in the maven-plugin-plugin. This will of course piss of a lot of people. Wouldn't it? There are, of course, several reasons why people can't: 1. Popularity of the old name That's no reason...a good announcment of the maintainers should work...and the rules are existing a long time 2. Technical reasons What kind of technical reasons ? Just change it... http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-3762 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: Maven plugin naming pattern
Hi, On 10/10/14 4:20 PM, Michael Osipov wrote: Hi, On 10/10/14 3:41 PM, Paul Benedict wrote: I would prefer this should be part of Maven Core's warning system. If the plugin starts with maven- and it's not an org.apache.maven.plugins group, then we should spit out the error. I am not sure enforcer is the right place for this rule; this is more of a global problem than a suggestion for good practice. In my opinion this should be part of Maven Core (Maven itself within the next version 3.2.4 ?) otherwise we can't be sure that those warnings (possible breaks) will ever happen... Located in the lifecycle phase of 'maven-plugin'? No always We have things like dependencies / plugins without versions which produces a warning at the moment... this can be same ways Kind regards Karl Heinz Marbaise - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: Maven plugin naming pattern
Hi, On 10/10/14 4:31 PM, Christian Schulte wrote: Am 10/10/14 14:00, schrieb Karl Heinz Marbaise: Hi, On 10/10/14 1:25 PM, Michael Osipov wrote: They should rename going forward. At some point (probably we could do so now) we will turn on enforcement in the maven-plugin-plugin. This will of course piss of a lot of people. Wouldn't it? There are, of course, several reasons why people can't: 1. Popularity of the old name That's no reason...a good announcment of the maintainers should work...and the rules are existing a long time 2. Technical reasons What kind of technical reasons ? Just change it... http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-3762 The issue was for Maven 2.0.9 sorry EoL not interesting anymore apart from that the comments giving that Maven 3 is working so i don't see any problem with that... Kind regards Karl Heinz Marbaise - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: Maven plugin naming pattern
relocations only make sense with version ranges and even then they don't make much sense. On 10 October 2014 15:31, Christian Schulte c...@schulte.it wrote: Am 10/10/14 14:00, schrieb Karl Heinz Marbaise: Hi, On 10/10/14 1:25 PM, Michael Osipov wrote: They should rename going forward. At some point (probably we could do so now) we will turn on enforcement in the maven-plugin-plugin. This will of course piss of a lot of people. Wouldn't it? There are, of course, several reasons why people can't: 1. Popularity of the old name That's no reason...a good announcment of the maintainers should work...and the rules are existing a long time 2. Technical reasons What kind of technical reasons ? Just change it... http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-3762 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: Maven plugin naming pattern
I agree that maven core should issue warnings on the plugin names... but we cannot break builds for people upgrading maven with a fully locked down pom (otherwise we'll never persuade them to upgrade, so IMHO core should warn only and never break... maven-plugin-plugin however should just break the build) On 10 October 2014 15:00, Karl Heinz Marbaise khmarba...@gmx.de wrote: Hi, On 10/10/14 3:41 PM, Paul Benedict wrote: I would prefer this should be part of Maven Core's warning system. If the plugin starts with maven- and it's not an org.apache.maven.plugins group, then we should spit out the error. I am not sure enforcer is the right place for this rule; this is more of a global problem than a suggestion for good practice. In my opinion this should be part of Maven Core (Maven itself within the next version 3.2.4 ?) otherwise we can't be sure that those warnings (possible breaks) will ever happen... If you you use enforcer you can of course create such a rule which is really simple but if you don't use that rule .. I would suggest to create for Maven 3.2.4 warning and for 3.3.X it should create an error and fail the build... Cheers, Paul On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 8:30 AM, Michael Osipov 1983-01...@gmx.net wrote: Fine, I'd like to note that first: 1. Shouldn't we announce this publically on the users mailing list? 2. I think that this deserves a major bump in plugin version. WDYT? Michael Gesendet: Freitag, 10. Oktober 2014 um 15:23 Uhr Von: Stephen Connolly stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com An: Maven Developers List dev@maven.apache.org Betreff: Re: Re: Re: Re: Maven plugin naming pattern That was the plan 3 years ago we decided to warn first and then switch on failing after a while... now is a good time, perhaps you could commit the change to fail the build? On 10 October 2014 13:48, Michael Osipov 1983-01...@gmx.net wrote: Yes, resposibility isn't always good. Shouldn't simply make the build fail instead of log when such a collision happens? Michael Thankfully for you, you are not on the PMC... if you were on the PMC and you did such a search you would then have to go and send CDs. /me runs away from this thread in case I happen to be made aware of any trademark misuse ;-) On 10 October 2014 13:39, Stephen Connolly stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com wrote: Yes On 10 October 2014 13:12, Michael Osipov 1983-01...@gmx.net wrote: If you do a quick search on Central, you'll that even other Apache project don't adhere to this convention. Should they receive a CD too? Michael We just need to show best effort to defend our trademark... if we *see* anyone doing that then we have to send them CD letters... Note: my understanding is that we only have to send CD letters when we know somebody is abusing our mark... we don't necessarily have to go actively looking for people abusing our mark... just if we went looking and found any then we have to send them CDs quite quickly On 10 October 2014 12:45, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 7:42 AM, Stephen Connolly stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com wrote: We, the PMC, agreed to allow permitted usage of the form ___-maven-plugin as that clarified that the plugin was a plugin for maven not one produced by maven Yea, I know, and I'm not opposed to making the tooling more obstreperous. I'm just warning people not to have high hopes of enforcement for anyone who chooses to hack the tooling and not cooperate. On 10 October 2014 12:40, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: Keep in mind that what we have here is almost certainly a _convention_, not a point of trademark law. As I understand it, we'd as likely be laughed at for the suggestion that reversing the order of the components of a name leads to 'marketplace confusion' at the level at which trademarks can be enforced. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 7:25 AM, Michael Osipov 1983-01...@gmx.net wrote: They should rename going forward. At some point (probably we could do so now) we will turn on enforcement in the maven-plugin-plugin. This will of course piss of a lot of people. Wouldn't it? There are, of course, several reasons why people can't: 1. Popularity of the old name 2. Technical reasons 3. Name collisions etc. Even if we enforce this, this should not happen before Maven 4 and should be added to the plugin dev center. Michael Kind regards Karl Heinz Marbaise - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: Maven plugin naming pattern
Agreed, Stephen. A warning should be emitted. A build should not break. Cheers, Paul On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Stephen Connolly stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com wrote: I agree that maven core should issue warnings on the plugin names... but we cannot break builds for people upgrading maven with a fully locked down pom (otherwise we'll never persuade them to upgrade, so IMHO core should warn only and never break... maven-plugin-plugin however should just break the build) On 10 October 2014 15:00, Karl Heinz Marbaise khmarba...@gmx.de wrote: Hi, On 10/10/14 3:41 PM, Paul Benedict wrote: I would prefer this should be part of Maven Core's warning system. If the plugin starts with maven- and it's not an org.apache.maven.plugins group, then we should spit out the error. I am not sure enforcer is the right place for this rule; this is more of a global problem than a suggestion for good practice. In my opinion this should be part of Maven Core (Maven itself within the next version 3.2.4 ?) otherwise we can't be sure that those warnings (possible breaks) will ever happen... If you you use enforcer you can of course create such a rule which is really simple but if you don't use that rule .. I would suggest to create for Maven 3.2.4 warning and for 3.3.X it should create an error and fail the build... Cheers, Paul On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 8:30 AM, Michael Osipov 1983-01...@gmx.net wrote: Fine, I'd like to note that first: 1. Shouldn't we announce this publically on the users mailing list? 2. I think that this deserves a major bump in plugin version. WDYT? Michael Gesendet: Freitag, 10. Oktober 2014 um 15:23 Uhr Von: Stephen Connolly stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com An: Maven Developers List dev@maven.apache.org Betreff: Re: Re: Re: Re: Maven plugin naming pattern That was the plan 3 years ago we decided to warn first and then switch on failing after a while... now is a good time, perhaps you could commit the change to fail the build? On 10 October 2014 13:48, Michael Osipov 1983-01...@gmx.net wrote: Yes, resposibility isn't always good. Shouldn't simply make the build fail instead of log when such a collision happens? Michael Thankfully for you, you are not on the PMC... if you were on the PMC and you did such a search you would then have to go and send CDs. /me runs away from this thread in case I happen to be made aware of any trademark misuse ;-) On 10 October 2014 13:39, Stephen Connolly stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com wrote: Yes On 10 October 2014 13:12, Michael Osipov 1983-01...@gmx.net wrote: If you do a quick search on Central, you'll that even other Apache project don't adhere to this convention. Should they receive a CD too? Michael We just need to show best effort to defend our trademark... if we *see* anyone doing that then we have to send them CD letters... Note: my understanding is that we only have to send CD letters when we know somebody is abusing our mark... we don't necessarily have to go actively looking for people abusing our mark... just if we went looking and found any then we have to send them CDs quite quickly On 10 October 2014 12:45, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 7:42 AM, Stephen Connolly stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com wrote: We, the PMC, agreed to allow permitted usage of the form ___-maven-plugin as that clarified that the plugin was a plugin for maven not one produced by maven Yea, I know, and I'm not opposed to making the tooling more obstreperous. I'm just warning people not to have high hopes of enforcement for anyone who chooses to hack the tooling and not cooperate. On 10 October 2014 12:40, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: Keep in mind that what we have here is almost certainly a _convention_, not a point of trademark law. As I understand it, we'd as likely be laughed at for the suggestion that reversing the order of the components of a name leads to 'marketplace confusion' at the level at which trademarks can be enforced. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 7:25 AM, Michael Osipov 1983-01...@gmx.net wrote: They should rename going forward. At some point (probably we could do so now) we will turn on enforcement in the maven-plugin-plugin. This will of course piss of a lot of people. Wouldn't it? There are, of course, several reasons why people can't: 1. Popularity of the old name 2. Technical reasons 3. Name collisions etc. Even if we enforce this, this should not happen before Maven 4 and should be added to the plugin dev center. Michael Kind regards Karl
