On Tue, 2006-01-10 at 21:07 -0500, Brian E. Fox wrote: > I've been looking at some plugins in the sandbox and I see some > issues: > > 1. If sandbox plugins deploy sites, (as they probably should so they > get some visability), the scm connections are wrong because they > inherit from the mojo parent. > 2. Some plugins have the name maven-xxx-plugin instead of > xxx-maven-plugin > 3. Many plugins aren't even posted on the mojo site. > > I'd like to have a vote on these issues: > > 1a. Should we create a mojo-sandbox parent and have sandbox plugins > derive from here? This way we can set the scm urls and anything else > that comes along here. Only the parent section would need to change > when a plugin graduates from the sandbox.
+1 > > - OR- > > 1b. Keep deriving from mojo parent, but add instructions to site to > tell devs how to override the scm connection when added to sandbox and > add instructions to guidelines for release to have devs remember to > remove the override when graduating. -1 Whatever we can take care of for the contributor automatically will help squelch troublesome deployments. I'm for your first suggestion. > > > 2. Should we correct the plugin names? +0 First dispel a rumor for me. Someone suggested that some of the names are that way to support handling of specific custom packaging. For example the maven-sar-plugin automatically handled <packaging>sar</packaging> but when I changed it to jboss-sar-maven-plugin prior to committing it to the sandbox it seems to have broken that. Are some of these named purposefully? > > 3. Should all sandbox plugins be added to the mojo sandbox site? +1, and to the snapshot repo. It ought to help increase their use and potential for graduation. Kris > > Thx. > > >
