Henri Yandell wrote:
On 4/28/06, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think that having a naming scheme is a good idea. From a user
standpoint I see no reason for keeping the project ids short (3-4
characters). If Jakarta will be sharing the Jira instance with other ASF
projects then using a J prefix for Jakarta project should be used, like
this:
- JLANG
- JDIGESTER
- JCOLLECTIONS
- JHTTPCORE
It does seem to be that there's more interest in the full name than
the shorter one.
In terms of the J***, we should we be asking infra@ what they want to do.
If infra don't require us to use a prefix then we shouldn't use one.
Keep it as simple as possible, but still readable.
<snip/>
In terms of ids, obviously one for each project. Do we also want one
for Commons in general for build and site issues? And I presume we'd
have a sandbox project.
How about COMMONS for general commons stuff? And perhaps JAKARTA as well.
We could either use SANDBOX for all sandbox components or create one id
for each sandbox component.
--
Dennis Lundberg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
