personally I like the nesting of a particular project under the groupId, like org.apache.maven.continuum...
just unfortunate that maven was..well maven since org.apache.maven.maven would look rather goofy and its a bit late to change that :) what did you have in mind jason? pull things like continuum down a notch group wise and fill up the org.apache.maven group space with lots and lots of artifacts across all subprojects? jesse On 12/9/06, Eric Redmond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If projects like Wagon and SCM will always be managed by the Maven project, then it makes sense to put them under org.apache.maven. If they are planned to eventuall become stand-alone projects, used outside of maven, it kind of makes more sense to me to keep the groupIds distinct as they are - if something like SCM will eventually be like "org.apache.scm" anyway. Which leads me to ask: what is a group, exactly? Is it a (probably rotating) team of developers? Or a specific project? If the former, I'd say make them org.apache.maven. If the latter, keep them as is. Thanks; Eric On 12/9/06, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > Just looking at our proliferation of projects and that we have many > groupIds and I'm wondering if we should be doing that and encouraging > that? > > Should all our projects here have a groupId of org.apache.maven? > > Jason. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Eric Redmond http://codehaus.org/~eredmond
-- jesse mcconnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
