On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Raymond Feng <[email protected]> wrote:
> I like the overall direction to release it separately. Do you plan to use > it for our 2.0_M1 release? > Probably a bit late for M1 unless that turns out having lots and lots of RCs which doesnt seem very likely. Even starting a vote tomorrow this plugin wouldn't be out till Friday so and an M1 RC then which is a bit of a delay unless someone objects to M1 without this plugin release. > I have a few comments: > > 1) Should we rename "plugins" to "maven-plugins" to be clear that it > contains maven plugins? > ok > > 2) Should we also consider the following renaming too? > Maven groupId: org.apache.tuscany.plugins ==> > org.apache.tuscany.maven.plugins > Java package name: org.apache.tuscany.sca.tools.maven.compiler ==> > org.apache.tuscany.maven.compiler > Yes, completely forgot about the package renames. > > 3) How about having the initial version as 2.0.0? > That one i'm not so sure about, its got no ties to the SCA 2.0 release and its never been released before so v1 seems ok to me, either would work though, what do others prefer? > > Later on, we can try to see if we can get other plugins into this base, > such as the osgi-based surefire plugin, and the our enhanced bundle plugin. > > +1, i think we can move out most of the things in the tools folder (other than the eclipse plugin) to be released separately from the SCA project (I'd actually like to consider releasing the sca-api module like this too so people can have applications not tied to Tuscany SCA releases but i guess thats for another thread). ...ant
