Hi Robert, I would actually suggest to go for
org.apache.sling.osgifeature as the OSGi features are inspired by Sling features (among other technologies) but not exactly the same. There might be more components that build on top of osgifeatures in the future in which case we'd get repositories like: org.apache.sling.osgifeature.sometool org.apache.sling.osgifeature.someplugin etc in the future... So that that point it would be consistent and in line with how other repos are named... If nobody objects to this over the next few days I'll go with this name. Cheers, David On Mon, 9 Aug 2021 at 16:10, Robert Munteanu <romb...@apache.org> wrote: > On Sat, 2021-08-07 at 16:13 +0100, dav...@apache.org wrote: > > Hi Robert, > > > > On Fri, 6 Aug 2021 at 12:16, Robert Munteanu <romb...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi David, > > > > > > On Fri, 2021-08-06 at 07:31 +0100, dav...@apache.org wrote: > > > > To prepare this implementation so that it can be released and be a > > > > proper > > > > component, I would propose that it moves out of the Sling > > > > Whiteboard > > > > into > > > > its own repository at Apache Sling. > > > > > > Sounds good to me. What is the proposed repository name? > > > > > > > How about org.apache.sling.osgifeature > > Or alternatively org.apache.sling.feature.osgi > > I think we use the org.apache.sling.feature artifact id prefix for all > feature model artifacts and that would get us more consistency, but I > don't have a strong opinion, so any would be fine by me. > > We usually discuss this upfront because if someone points out a flaw in > the naming that we have to ask infra to rename, and that is an > "expensive" operation. > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/SLING/Using+Git+with+Sling > > Thanks, > Robert > > > > ? > > > > Best regards, > > > > David > > >
