On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 8:53 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> wrote:
> 2017-08-22 14:05 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament <[email protected]>: > >> All, >> >> So what do we have to do to get this moving forward? >> >> I think a few of us prefer to keep the Geronimo name. Even if it is some >> of our histories, legacies have you, it may be the future or perhaps a >> revitalization effort to restore the name. >> >> The name Geronimo is actually pretty import from the Apache Indians, so >> keeping that name also keeps that sort of name trend alive. Which is >> pretty cool IMHO. >> >> I think there's been a bunch of ideas thrown out: >> >> - Do nothing. Keep the name as is, formally retire the app server piece >> (I guess this is just us reasserting the page and starting over?) >> - Take a new name. I'm not sure if this means creating a new PMC or just >> finding a new name for the existing PMC, don't really care either way. >> - Migrate Config to another PMC. >> - Start a new PMC/project just for config. >> >> Do we simply just need to keep those discussions going? >> > > Clearly not (in particular when already solved multiple times ;)). If > config is ready we can just let it be released. > So then are we in agreement, leave it as Geronimo Config and move forward with it? MP Config 1.1 is about to be released, so maybe we cut a release right after that? I spoke with David offline. While he raised some concerns about using XBean and that being where most of the common functionality lived, there's some legacy issues with in XBean. its a sub-project by itself. Its not an umbrella, so putting config within that would mean we have to release all of XBean but releasing config separately makes sense. I confirmed with Mark today. So... let's continue to call it Geronimo Config for now. We can address later. > > >> >> John >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 4:05 AM Mark Struberg <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> > Not a fan of last one since ultimately it means we must drop the name >>> in the project and is not consistent with last months discussions IMHO. >>> >>> >>> Well it is imo very well consistent. I also already thought about simply >>> renaming the G project to something different. I try to explain my original >>> arguments again: >>> >>> All I wanted to prevent is to have half baked solutions and leaving dead >>> corpse lying on the ground. Either we burry it properly or we keep G alive. >>> >>> There are a few things I want to ensure: >>> >>> 1.) A (very) few artifacts are really hard to rename. Mostly the G specs >>> part. If we change that groupId away from o.a.geronimo then a TON of >>> projects need to change their poms. That just causes confusion. So whatever >>> we do, we should imo keep the specs at a single central place and keep the >>> o.a.geronimo groupId >>> >>> 2.) There should be a common place for some Enterprise related common >>> parts, like the TX-Mgr, the specs, xbean-finder, the config, etc. Basically >>> everything which is usable as a standalone component but too small to form >>> an own PMC. There should be ONE go-to place for such parts. We currently >>> have quite a lot smallish PMCs (BVal, BatchEE, etc) with low activity >>> because we exactly do NOT have such a place. >>> I already thought about just moving those parts to the Commons PMC. That >>> might make perfect sense in some regards but they are not interested in >>> dealing with TCKs and stuff. >>> >>> Now here is what might have been misunderstood: >>> >>> 3.) You cannot use the org.apache.geronimo groupId and package name in >>> DIFFERNT PMCs. So that's an all-or-nothing policy. David Blevins wanted to >>> move parts of G to TomEE. That's picking the resins. Either we move all the >>> active and still in use parts (and moving the rest to the attic), or >>> nothing! And we also cannot move some parts to X and others to Y if they >>> both use the o.a.geronimo groupId or package names. >>> >>> >>> Yes, the "Geronimo" is often still connected with the G server. And the >>> G server in the meantime (10 years after it's peak) has not the best >>> reputation. Calling something Geronimo-bla _might_ make people think of the >>> Server and might make them think that the G server is still alive or makes >>> a comeback. That's not the case, but it might be the perception we create >>> if we name something Geronimo-bla. >>> >>> Otoh, moving all that stuff to TomEE is similar. TomEE as a brand is >>> connected with the end user product, the TomEE server. That's why I was >>> opposed to that proposal. (But note that I only have exactly ONE -1, as >>> anybody else) >>> >>> I could think about moving all the active G parts to TomEE, >> IF << >>> * really ALL the active parts are handed over, also the stuff TomEE >>> doesn't need >>> * there is a separate brand associated with the reusable components, and >>> TomEE is just the responsible PMC. It must really be clear that those >>> reusable components are usable even independent of the TomEE server. >>> * The reusable parts have separate SCM repositories and a separate >>> lifecycle! >>> >>> In that case we could move the G server and the inactive parts to the >>> attic. I am fine with that. What I don't want is to have some projects pick >>> the resins and leave a half dead bloody corpse on the ground. >>> >>> LieGrue, >>> strub >>> >>> >>> > Am 09.08.2017 um 07:08 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau < >>> [email protected]>: >>> > >>> > I wouldnt go with xbean. Why not naming it if you dont want of G? >>> > >>> > Concretely there are 2 options: >>> > >>> > - keep G and promote the project with its new goal >>> > - drop it and name it with something new >>> > >>> > Not a fan of last one since ultimately it means we must drop the name >>> in the project and is not consistent with last months discussions IMHO. >>> > >>> > Wdyt? >>> > >>> > Le 9 août 2017 02:33, "John D. Ament" <[email protected]> a écrit >>> : >>> > Not to stir that pot, but does it make sense to just rename Geronimo >>> itself to XBean? >>> > >>> > I'm assuming then for config you're talking about changing the >>> coordinates to org.apache.xbean:xbean-config(-impl) ? >>> > >>> > John >>> > >>> > On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 7:15 PM Mark Struberg <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > Perfectly fine for me. I'd still give it a different release lifecycle >>> from the rest of xbean. >>> > Actually it makes not much sense for the rest of xbean to share the >>> same version. >>> > Most of the components do not have any common ground with each other. >>> > >>> > LieGrue, >>> > strub >>> > >>> > >>> > > Am 09.08.2017 um 01:11 schrieb David Blevins < >>> [email protected]>: >>> > > >>> > > Can we rename Geronimo Config? I think the name is strongly stuck >>> with the app server. From experience in EJB land, try to repurpose names >>> is usually an uphill battle. >>> > > >>> > > If we wanted to go with the grain, we could call it XBean Config. >>> Open to other names as well. >>> > > >>> > > If we did call it XBean Config, I’m not sure there’s a need to have >>> the same version as the other xbean components. We could, but I think 1.0 >>> would still be fine. >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > -- >>> > > David Blevins >>> > > http://twitter.com/dblevins >>> > > http://www.tomitribe.com >>> > > >>> > >>> >>>
