On Oct 9, 2012, at 11:22 AM, Thomas Mortagne <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Oct 9, 2012, at 11:09 AM, Thomas Mortagne <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi devs, >>> >>> In order to automate the update of extensions imported from >>> https://github.com/xwiki/ we need to have nothing to modify when an >>> import is done. >>> >>> The last remaining thing is the name on which there is a debate is the >>> name. Right now the name we have in our maven project looks like >>> "XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - Maven" so that's what we get >>> when importing this project or when viewing it in EM UI. >>> >>> Some of us want to keep this idish name for Maven build but don't like >>> it when displaying extension. I recently introduced a way to overwrite >>> some extension related informations like the name based on properties. >>> >>> So here are the choices we have: >>> >>> 1) Do nothing which mean display "XWiki Commons - Extension - >>> Repository - Maven" in EM UI and extensions.xwiki.org >>> 2) Change our naming in Maven <name> property for it to be more a name >>> than an id that would looks good in EM UI >>> 3) Keep the same naming for Maven <name> and overwrite it everywhere >>> using <xwiki.extension.name> property >>> >>> So, WDYT ? >>> >>> The one that makes the more sense to me is 2) so my +1 goes to this >>> one. Frankly I don't care too much having the current id based display >>> of the summary of built modules in Maven build and I personally won't >>> have any issue to know what name correspond to what project (but >>> that's because I know them well, I can understand new dev could be a >>> bit more lost). >>> >>> Then: >>> * +0 for 3) to +0 (I don't like too much having this special case >>> everywhere in our Maven pom.xml) >>> * -0 for 1) (I agree that it does not looks very nice as a display name). >> >> Exactly the same as Thomas for me. I'd really like if we could find a >> solution that works for 2). Even in Maven it's supposed to be a name, i.e. >> something readable, not an id… Now even with 2) we would still need a naming >> rule and have some concise name. > > Of course but I wanted to keep the (display name) naming discussion separated. Yes, but I think they're linked because if we can't find a good name then we're left with option 3). Thanks -Vincent _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
