On 28 Feb 2013, at 13:40, Felix Meschberger wrote: > Hi, > > I find this an intriguing idea and would really position creating OSGi > bundles as a first-class job of build Java modules. > > Stuart, I assume you are a maven committer, so you continuing to maintain the > plugin would be possible ? It would be a shame if we contribute the plugin to > maven and it would then be orphaned...
Actually I've never been asked to become a Maven committer :) but part of the contribution process usually involves requesting committership for people involved in maintaining the plugin - as you say we don't want to end up orphaning the plugin. It's important that people consider carefully the implications of changing the owning project - on the one hand there are opportunities for making the plugin work better with Maven out-of-the-box, but on the other hand any Felix developers that wanted to hack on the plugin in the future (but weren't in the list of current maintainers) would then need to send patches via the Maven team, at least until they were able to gain committership there. Then again there may be existing Maven developers that are willing to help improve the plugin. Of course the easiest path would be to continue with the status quo, but I think it's healthy to have this discussion and see what our users think (there's a separate discussion thread on users@felix to limit cross-posting). > Regards > Felix > > Am 28.02.2013 um 14:35 schrieb Stuart McCulloch: > >> During the "[DISCUSS] rename maven-bundle-plugin to bnd-maven-plugin" thread >> Marcel and Guillaume came up with counter-suggestions involving contributing >> the maven-bundle-plugin to Apache Maven. >> >> This idea has certain advantages - the plugin name would not be an issue >> (assuming the Maven team were ok with 'bundle'==OSGi, as there are other >> interpretations of 'bundle' such as resource bundles) and there's then a >> chance we could get the 'bundle' packaging type recognized by default by >> Maven (though this wouldn't necessarily be a done deal). It would also mean >> that people wouldn't need to specify a groupId when adding the plugin to >> their pom.xml and you could use the short form of the plugin name from the >> command-line. >> >> The disadvantages are this would still involve a change of plugin >> coordinates (org.apache.felix -> org.apache.maven.plugins) and any changes >> or improvements would have to go through the Apache Maven project. >> >> There's also a question of whether the Apache Maven team would accept the >> contribution... >> >> WDYT? >> >> -- >> Cheers, Stuart >> >> On 28 Feb 2013, at 13:03, Marcel Offermans wrote: >> >>> On Feb 28, 2013, at 13:43 , Stuart McCulloch <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> On 28 Feb 2013, at 07:05, fbalicchia wrote: >>>> >>>>> I think it is the best choice to follow the naming convention. >>>>> What I do not understand is why plugins can't be hosted by Apache >>>> >>>> The Apache Maven team prefer to keep the maven-NNN-plugin naming for >>>> plugins developed and maintained by them (ie. those with groupId >>>> org.apache.maven.plugins) whereas Maven plugins developed by other Apache >>>> (or non-Apache) projects are encouraged to use NNN-maven-plugin naming. >>>> The idea is to help avoid confusion about which plugins are directly >>>> supported by Apache Maven team and which are supported elsewhere: >>>> >>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg128850.html >>>> >>>> While renaming the plugin would be a courtesy to the Apache Maven team, it >>>> is not mandatory if it would cause problems for downstream users - hence >>>> this discussion thread. >>> >>> I would say, our users come first. Renaming the plugin causes them problems >>> for no reason (to them) so let's not do that. >>> >>> Instead, we could also solve this by donating the plugin to the Apache >>> Maven project. >>> >>> Greetings, Marcel > > > -- > Felix Meschberger | Principal Scientist | Adobe > > > > > > >
