Hi Peter (again) :) On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 4:56 PM Peter Palaga <ppal...@redhat.com> wrote: > Given what you said, what are once again the benefits changing the > groupId of the SB starters?
I've touched upon some of the benefits in my original e-mail[1], in short I think that having a separate namespace allows us some leeway in the future for having different kinds of starters. I was mostly prompted by this with the issue we had when we moved from supporting Spring Boot 1.5.x to supporting Spring Boot 2.x, if we had a separate namespace then, we could have had the possibility of supporting both versions, there were other reasons why this would be difficult, but not having separate namespace was one of them. I would like to have this option in the future, and doing this in Camel 3.x when we're allowing some breaking changes feels like the right moment to do it. > By breaking the 1:1:1 relationship between release cycle, groupId and > git repository, we will cause confusion and migration costs on the side > of the users and there certainly should exist benefits that outweight those. I know of several git repositories that release from one Maven graph with different group IDs, and I contribute to some of them, I've never experienced this issue, perhaps you can provide an example to make it a bit more clearer for me to reason about this? zoran [1] https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/camel-dev/201906.mbox/%3CCABD_Zr8z_iyw8O9o3xdNibkDwJa3ExzAj2RRSZu2hXag7MQumw%40mail.gmail.com%3E -- Zoran Regvart
