Sounds like there is enough diversity of opinion that this discussion should go on - first step seems to be deciding if we think the CLA and/or gerrit-style review is important for all artifacts deployed to org.gwtproject.
For the time being, it sounds like individual groupIds are the way forward, with the expectation of migrating projects to org.gwtproject and github.com/gwtproject once they reach a certain level of quality and stability, once we decide what that is. As per our name use policy, that should fall to the steering committee to decide, but I at least would welcome more feedback from contributors on what those standards might look like. Likewise from that name use document, we should avoid the use of org.gwtproject packages as well until that time. This might make migration a little trickier (changing packages multiple times) as we refactor various modules out from gwt-user. For my part, I would like to see this line blurred slightly or at least clarified - code which started its life in com.google.gwt but isn't presently "controlled" by the committee due it it being in progress should perhaps not be restricted in this way (in the same way that Vaadin ships a GWT fork, but still uses com.google.gwt packages for compatibility). We could phrase this in individual projects as "This code came from GWT, and is incubating here until it is contributed back to GWT", making it clear that the project is not intended to be a third party tool, but is using the name in good faith that this will be again part of GWT soon. On Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 2:23:02 PM UTC-6, Goktug Gokdogan wrote: > > It could be hard to communicate and set expectations with a live > work-in-progress gwt-project repository and via publishing on maven > central. I agree with Jens on first setting up a foundation, rules and also > maturing what GWT3 is; and in the meantime let people iterate in their own > repos which will set expectation accordingly. > > On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 9:31 AM, Jens <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > >> Oh and if its just about making these small projects more discoverable >> then one could also create a single project, e.g. gwtproject/gwt3-migration >> and use the wiki for documentation and/or git submodules to link in all >> these small projects as well. >> >> -- J. >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "GWT Contributors" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected] >> <javascript:>. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-web-toolkit-contributors/ee2066ec-2b18-4921-8476-6a2195cffecc%40googlegroups.com >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-web-toolkit-contributors/ee2066ec-2b18-4921-8476-6a2195cffecc%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GWT Contributors" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-web-toolkit-contributors/a7b91aa5-c26d-496b-ae1a-95fb5dd42d84%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
