Hi Hervé,
On 3/14/15 1:43 PM, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote:
ok, we have a clear winner: MojoHaus
(and we'll have a statement like "formerly known as Codehaus Mojo project" on
our website once migrated)
I created the github organization: https://github.com/MojoHaus
what are the next steps?
Migration of the plugins to git repos...?
BTW: Could you please add me to the organization...
Kind regards
Karl Heinz Marbaise
Regards,
Hervé
Le mercredi 11 mars 2015 08:54:09 Hervé BOUTEMY a écrit :
then we have a few proposals:
- Mojo Extras
- MojoHaus
- The Mojo Project
I really like MojoHaus
Regards,
Hervé
Le mardi 10 mars 2015 09:28:59 vous avez écrit :
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".
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
