I think we should do the renaming in a major release (2.0), where users may expect that many existing code will break. Providing a command/whatever is a really nice thimg to send to the ML, but not all users are subscribed, so I think it is better to introduce such a breaker change in a major.
Regarding the 2 package thing (if I've understood), I don't see it: how long will we keep the two packages? Are we going to request people sending PRs to make the contributions in both packages? I don't see it practical. I. El 13/11/2013 22:25, "Adrian Cole" <[email protected]> escribió: > My 2p is to release any package rename dist simultaneously with equiv > functionality dist on the old package names. That way, folks can do a 2 > commit conversion, first to whatever is new and second to the new packages. > > I don't have a strong view on whether or not to rename, ^^ in the case it > is bound to occur. > > -A > On Nov 13, 2013 12:49 PM, "Andrew Gaul" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > We should change the names at some point to conform with other Apache > > projects. Doing this sooner rather than later will reduce overall > > frustration. If we can reduce the user pain to some simple > > command-line, e.g., > > > > find -name pom.xml -o -name \*.java | > > xargs sed -i 's/org.jclouds/org.apache.jclouds/g' > > > > we should rename the package names for 1.7.0, immediately before rc1. I > > also want to use an automated path for changing jclouds itself, since we > > have so many source files and respositories. > > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 07:45:33PM +0000, Everett Toews wrote: > > > I'm not aware of any packages with apache in them yet. My take on it is > > to keep things consistent and *not* name the package with apache. > > > > > > When (If?) we do the package renaming we should do it as a big bang > > renaming coinciding with a major version change (2.0?). This is a huge > > backwards incompatibly and we should keep things consistent for as long > as > > possible for our users sanity sake. > > > > > > Everett > > > > > > > > > On Nov 13, 2013, at 12:52 PM, Jeremy Daggett wrote: > > > > > > > Hey folks, > > > > > > > > I was just creating a package and realized that it might not > > necessarily be > > > > correct. > > > > > > > > What is our plan on package naming going forward? As a top level > > Apache > > > > project, I would expect this to change to "org.apache.jclouds.*". > > > > > > > > Most packages are currently under "org.jclouds.*". Should I blaze the > > trail > > > > on this and go for the new package name? Thoughts? > > > > > > > > /jd > > > > -- > > Andrew Gaul > > http://gaul.org/ > > >
