Niclas Hedhman a écrit : > I have no strong opinion about it. I just note that it is "should" and not > "must", and compatibility is always a reasonable excuse. > > Are you suggesting that only the GroupId will be changed, and that the > artfacts are still called org.qi4j.core.api-2.1.jar ? That's not what I was thinking about but we can also do this. Move groupId from org.qi4j.* to org.apache.zest.* ; keep the actual artifactIds and java packages.
I understand "maven" groupIds as the organization that release the associated artifacts. Hence this discussion. I'm pretty sure we'll want to release 3.0 under org.apache.zest groupId. Maybe with org.apache.zest.* artifactIds. Maybe with java packages relocated under org.apache.zest. We didn't discuss this just yet and we have some time for this. On the other hand, if we can release 2.1 without groupId/artifactId relocation (org.qi4j.*:org.qi4j.*), the impact on existing applications upgrading from 2.0 to 2.1 will be close to none, and that'd be a good thing. In between the two is maven coordinates relocation without java packages changes. This should only impact the build system of existing applications upgrading from 2.0 to 2.1, not their codebase. I myself can live with that. We can ask for several groupIds for a single project at repository.apache.org. So, we could ask for both org.qi4j and org.apache.zest. What do you think? /Paul
