Alex Harui wrote on 8/3/17 10:37 AM: > From the peanut gallery: > > Does the PPMC get to decide what constitutes a "very good reason" or does > the IPMC and after graduation, the board? > > Flex has not changed its packages in the 5 years at Apache. We felt > backward compatibility was and is a "very good reason". It was way more > important to not require folks to alter their code in order to move to the > Apache versions of Flex. Also, we are not using Java/Maven so there isn't > really a shading option. > > On the other hand, it seems like it could be confusing for Apache projects > to have packages starting with "com.". Flex's packages start with "mx" or > "spark" (the component set names).
This is the only significant point for me. I would be -1 on TLPs continuing to ship a com.company.* package for the primary code for the project *If* there is a long history of use and expectations of compatibility, and *if* the package names are not reverse-domains but are just component names, then that's fine to keep the package names. > > Seems like a more refined guidance would be that: > 1) packages starting with "com" (and maybe org.somethingOtherThanApache) > should be changed as soon as possible/practical Any packages that use the reversed domain name prefix. > 2) there is no recommendation for other package prefixes It's still a best practice to use org.apache.*, unless the package prefix is long-used and is based on component or functionality names. -- - Shane https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/resources --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
