On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 9:05 AM, jieryn <jie...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yes, sorry I wasn't clear. I meant if the groupId=codehaus.org is an > Apache issue without owning/controlling actual dns-a=codehaus.org, > then the easiest and fastest solution, for both users and devs, is > just to own the dns-a record. I am not talking about any complex > mirrorOf or relocating packages, I just meant 302 the www.codehaus.org > over to some Apache Maven page. > > If Apache was the owner of the dns-a=codehaus.org, then all the legal > suits would be happy, all the developer boots would be happy, and > business carries on relatively uninterrupted where we can have more > time to decide if/how to do a migration. Without pressure, and without > causing a big pain for all the non-infra folks just trying to get > stuff done. >
No one has to 'own' a Maven groupId. There's no trademark issue; it's below the level of trademark. Suits don't care. It's just a string which happens, by convention, to often correspond to DNS addresses. As for www.codehaus.org, I doubt that the board is interested in being a foster-parent here, but I could be wrong. > > On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 8:44 AM, Keegan Witt <keeganw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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 > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: > > http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email > > >
