Agreed, Stephen. A warning should be emitted. A build should not break.
Cheers, Paul On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Stephen Connolly < stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: > I agree that maven core should issue warnings on the plugin names... but we > cannot break builds for people upgrading maven with a fully locked down pom > (otherwise we'll never persuade them to upgrade, so IMHO core should warn > only and never break... maven-plugin-plugin however should just break the > build) > > On 10 October 2014 15:00, Karl Heinz Marbaise <khmarba...@gmx.de> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > On 10/10/14 3:41 PM, Paul Benedict wrote: > > > >> I would prefer this should be part of Maven Core's warning system. If > the > >> plugin starts with maven- and it's not an org.apache.maven.plugins > group, > >> then we should spit out the error. I am not sure enforcer is the right > >> place for this rule; this is more of a global problem than a suggestion > >> for > >> good practice. > >> > > > > In my opinion this should be part of Maven Core (Maven itself within the > > next version 3.2.4 ?) otherwise we can't be sure that those warnings > > (possible breaks) will ever happen... > > > > If you you use enforcer you can of course create such a rule which is > > really simple but if you don't use that rule ...... > > > > I would suggest to create for Maven 3.2.4 warning and for 3.3.X it should > > create an error and fail the build... > > > > > > > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Paul > >> > >> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 8:30 AM, Michael Osipov <1983-01...@gmx.net> > >> wrote: > >> > >> Fine, I'd like to note that first: > >>> > >>> 1. Shouldn't we announce this publically on the users mailing list? > >>> 2. I think that this deserves a major bump in plugin version. WDYT? > >>> > >>> Michael > >>> > >>> Gesendet: Freitag, 10. Oktober 2014 um 15:23 Uhr > >>>> Von: "Stephen Connolly" <stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> > >>>> An: "Maven Developers List" <dev@maven.apache.org> > >>>> Betreff: Re: Re: Re: Re: Maven plugin naming pattern > >>>> > >>>> That was the plan.... 3 years ago we decided to warn first and then > >>>> > >>> switch > >>> > >>>> on failing after a while... now is a good time, perhaps you could > commit > >>>> the change to fail the build? > >>>> > >>>> On 10 October 2014 13:48, Michael Osipov <1983-01...@gmx.net> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Yes, resposibility isn't always good. > >>>>> > >>>>> Shouldn't simply make the build fail instead of log when such a > >>>>> > >>>> collision > >>> > >>>> happens? > >>>>> > >>>>> Michael > >>>>> > >>>>> Thankfully for you, you are not on the PMC... if you were on the PMC > >>>>>> > >>>>> and > >>> > >>>> you did such a search you would then have to go and send C&Ds. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> /me runs away from this thread in case I happen to be made aware of > >>>>>> > >>>>> any > >>> > >>>> trademark misuse ;-) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 10 October 2014 13:39, Stephen Connolly < > >>>>>> > >>>>> stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> > >>>>> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Yes > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 10 October 2014 13:12, Michael Osipov <1983-01...@gmx.net> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>>>>> If you do a quick search on Central, you'll that even other Apache > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> project > >>>>> > >>>>>> don't adhere to this convention. Should they receive a C&D too? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Michael > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> We just need to show best effort to defend our trademark... if > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> we > >>> > >>>> *see* > >>>>> > >>>>>> anyone doing that then we have to send them C&D letters... > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Note: my understanding is that we only have to send C&D letters > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> when we > >>>>> > >>>>>> know somebody is abusing our mark... we don't necessarily have > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> to go > >>> > >>>> actively looking for people abusing our mark... just if we went > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> looking > >>>>> > >>>>>> and > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> found any then we have to send them C&Ds quite quickly > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On 10 October 2014 12:45, Benson Margulies < > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> bimargul...@gmail.com> > >>> > >>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 7:42 AM, Stephen Connolly > >>>>>>>>>> <stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> We, the PMC, agreed to allow permitted usage of the form > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> ___-maven-plugin > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> as that clarified that the plugin was a plugin for maven > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> not one > >>> > >>>> produced > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> by maven > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Yea, I know, and I'm not opposed to making the tooling more > >>>>>>>>>> obstreperous. I'm just warning people not to have high hopes > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> of > >>> > >>>> enforcement for anyone who chooses to hack the tooling and not > >>>>>>>>>> cooperate. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On 10 October 2014 12:40, Benson Margulies < > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> bimargul...@gmail.com> > >>>>> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Keep in mind that what we have here is almost certainly a > >>>>>>>>>>>> _convention_, not a point of trademark law. As I > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> understand it, > >>> > >>>> we'd > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> as likely be laughed at for the suggestion that reversing > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> the > >>> > >>>> order of > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> the components of a name leads to 'marketplace confusion' > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> at > >>> > >>>> the > >>>>> > >>>>>> level > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> at which trademarks can be enforced. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 7:25 AM, Michael Osipov < > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> 1983-01...@gmx.net> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> They should rename going forward. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> At some point (probably we could do so now) we will > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> turn on > >>> > >>>> enforcement > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the maven-plugin-plugin. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> This will of course piss of a lot of people. Wouldn't it? > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> There are, of course, several reasons why people can't: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Popularity of the old name > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Technical reasons > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Name collisions > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> etc. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Even if we enforce this, this should not happen before > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Maven > >>> > >>>> 4 > >>>>> > >>>>>> and > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> should be added to the plugin dev center. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Kind regards > > Karl Heinz Marbaise > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > > > >
