Another idea for a GitHub org that I recently had was a MojoHaus mash-up. That
would have at least some heritage of CodeHaus Mojo brand preserved. A quick
google search reveals that the name is only used on the music scene, so should
be clear to use in software world.
--
Sergei
>
>Tuesday, 10 March 2015 07:14 +0000 from Hervé BOUTEMY <herve.bout...@free.fr>:
>ok, another idea: Mojo Extras (I just reserved the github org)
>= Mojo (ie plugins for Maven) that can't be hosted at ASF for license issues,
>or generally less strict rules about anything (which comes at a price: this is
>not a foundation, no dev protection, or anything the rules are done for)
>I'm not trying anything to replace Codehaus name itself, because Codehaus is
>really wide
>Regards,
>Hervé
>Le jeudi 5 mars 2015 15:51:03 vous avez écrit :
>> Hello Hervé,
>>
>> I would suggest that "mojo" is quite unknown for most developers (who are
>> non-maven-plugin developers) out there.
>> Few would even contemplate calling the plugins by their full - or even
>> abbreviated - name.
>> Whenever I hear people talking about a plugin, they simply say "the aspectj
>> plugin" or equivalent.
>> Not "the aspectj-maven-plugin" - and definitely not "Mojo's
>> aspectj-maven-plugin".
>>
>> Hence, I don't think that the Mojo "brand" is well-known at all (actually,
>> it is more confusing since it can be mixed up with the name of the Mojo
>> interface and AbstractMojo implementation).
>> I don't even believe that the "Codehaus" brand is well-known to the
>> genereal development community.
>> If anything, the names of the plugins themselves *could* be known.
>>
>> So ... if we are going to refactor the Codehaus codebase and organisation,
>> let's do it to best match the future demands.
>>
>> I would also suggest being *very* clear about presenting the reason that
>> the Codehaus/Mojo project develops Maven plugins instead of the projects
>> themselves.
>> For example - it would seem apparent that the AspectJ project should
>> develop an aspectj-maven-plugin.
>> However, that plugin is developed by Codehaus, and I believe that we should
>> be a bit clearer in documenting why.
>>
>> Fair?
>>
>> 2015-03-05 9:24 GMT+01:00 Hervé BOUTEMY < herve.bout...@free.fr >:
>> > Le mercredi 4 mars 2015 14:16:08 vous avez écrit :
>> > > *Project name*
>> > > May not be a concern, but that needs to be cleared out sooner than
>> > > later.
>> > > I think that one of the most pressing subject may indeed not be
>> > > technical
>> > > but about the name of our project: what name should/could we use for the
>> > > project.
>> > >
>> > > Should/could it stay "'Codehaus Mojo" on GitHub even after Codehaus EOL
>> > > (meaning we'd certainly use https://github.com/codehaus-mojo org)? or
>> > > "Maven Mojo" (which would make googling for it quite difficult btw)? Or
>> > > change the project name even more?
>> >
>> > -1 to "Maven Mojo": trademark concern on Maven (Apache Maven, to be
>> > precise)
>> > could be "Mojo for Maven"
>> >
>> > why not just "Mojo" as the project name?
>> > AFAIK, it has become a well known name lately: is there really a need for
>> > "XXX
>> > Mojo", whatever XXX is?
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> > Hervé
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> > To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
>> > http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
> http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
