I think it's a bad idea to not include the "Mojo" name in some form. The project has been around for over 10 years now and it widely known and used in the Maven community.
I think Mojo Extras is a good name, I would like to propose "The Mojo Project". -- Trygve On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 08:14:32AM +0100, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote: > 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 > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
