I think he was suggesting Apache would be the caretaker of the domain, on behalf of both Codehaus projects that move to Apache and those that don't, and just the www.codehaus.org main page would redirect to an Apache page (though I'd prefer to redirect to an Apache page that describes the Codehaus shutdown and how things were migrated). I'm not sure whether that's something they'd be up for or not.
-Keegan On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 8:35 AM, jieryn <jie...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Apache, and Apache Maven, should just purchase the codehaus.org domain >> name and set a permanent redirect to Apache Maven site. >> > > Why? Who cares? There's no important relationship between a Maven gid and > a DNS domain name. Codehaus.org contained tons of non-Maven stuff, why > should it move into Apache Maven? > > > >> >> Maybe Ben would be willing to give that last gift to the community and >> transfer ownership to Apache. It expires on 2016-02-26 anyway.. >> >> On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 8:20 AM, Anders Hammar <and...@hammar.net> wrote: >> > Anyone who knows if it actually possible for us to keep the groupId when >> > moving, as we don't own the codehaus.org domain? I think that most of >> us can >> > agree on it's best (at least in short term) and easier to keep the same >> > groupId. But can we really do that? >> > >> > /Anders >> > >> > On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Arnaud Héritier <aherit...@codehaus.org >> > >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> +1 keep codehaus.org for existing plugins >> >> perhaps prepare a new groupId with required resources (central sync ..) >> >> for new plugins and add it in the default list of plugins groups for >> future >> >> maven releases >> >> >> >> On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Agree. We must take take it easy for users. >> >>> Folks who managed central knows the situation. So IMHO this will not >> be a >> >>> big problem. >> >>> >> >>> On 4 May 2015 at 20:27, Trygve Laugstøl <tryg...@codehaus.org> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> I think it is best to just keep the group id for all existing Mojos. >> >>>> Repackaging the code and having all clients is a lot of hassle for >> no gain. >> >>>> For new plugins, I guess they could use the new group id. >> >>>> >> >>>> -- >> >>>> Trygve >> >>>> >> >>>> On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 09:48:59AM +0000, Julien HENRY wrote: >> >>>> > Hi guys, >> >>>> > Sorry if it was already discussed but do you know what will be the >> >>>> > future of the groupId? Now that all plugins are moving to GitHub >> are we >> >>>> > still allowed to deploy on central with groupId org.codehaus.mojo? >> AFAIK >> >>>> > Maven conventions are that we should own the domain codehaus.org >> to deploy >> >>>> > artifacts with groupId org.codehaus.* >> >>>> > And if the plan is to change the groupId, this is a big change >> since >> >>>> > org.codehaus.mojo is hardcoded into Maven as a "default" groupId. >> It means >> >>>> > for example that SonarQube users simply have to run mvn >> sonar:sonar without >> >>>> > any special configuration. So I need to know what are the plan in >> order to >> >>>> > prepare transition (may need to update documentation, Jenkins >> plugin, ...). >> >>>> > Thanks >> >>>> > Julien >> >>>> >> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>>> To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: >> >>>> >> >>>> http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> Olivier Lamy >> >>> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: >> >> http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email >> >> >> >
