On 10 Mai, 22:17, d...@kronkltd.net (Daniel E. Renfer) wrote: > Phil Hagelberg <p...@hagelb.org> writes: > > Howard Lewis Ship <hls...@gmail.com> writes: > > >> clojure-lang because there will be a clojure-contrib artifact for the > >> same group. > > > And this is ... a bad thing? I'm lost. > > > -Phil > > Good, at least I'm not the only one. > > Why can't we have both clojure and clojure-contrib as Id's?
Right! I am hoping, that Howard will shade some light on his view. I'm really interested in all decisions regarding the Maven bundle to be as transparent as possible. Since people will ask why the artifact has been given a certain ID, I hope, this thread will document those decisions for future reference. Thus, Howard's (and Rich's too) opinion and explanation is be highly appreciated. So uploading the bundle is going to be deferred for a couple of days. -Stefan --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
