Yes, that'd be a great idea. Surprisingly, it's not that prominent on
Maven's own site. Here's an example of their own docs about it:
https://maven.apache.org/guides/plugin/guide-java-plugin-development.html
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 at 14:46, Rodric Rabbah wrote:
>
> > For example, the official
> For example, the official project plugins follow a naming scheme of
maven-foo-plugin, while third party plugins follow a naming scheme of
foo-maven-plugin. Similar to the distinction between “Apache Maven Foo
Plugin” versus “Foo Plugin for Apache Maven”.
This is useful - are you suggesting we
Good idea to define naming schemes like how maven does for plugins. For
example, the official project plugins follow a naming scheme of
maven-foo-plugin, while third party plugins follow a naming scheme of
foo-maven-plugin. Similar to the distinction between “Apache Maven Foo
Plugin” versus “Foo
Rodric,
Great reference and agree with Bertrand that we should copy Spark's stellar
example.
To that end, please review PR which accomplishes that goal:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk-website/pull/387/files
Thanks,
Matt
On 2019/06/12 11:15:51, Rodric Rabbah wrote:
> The
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 1:16 PM Rodric Rabbah wrote:
> ...Spark is one example that might be useful for reference, available at
> http://spark.apache.org/trademarks.html. It provides appropriate links to
> the ASF [3] and summarizes the key points of the policy...
That's a great example,
The discussion about our graduation on the general list [1] led to a
question relating to how we manage the project trademarks. Specifically,
our project website does not provide any guidance we can point to when
needed. We have previously discussed the use of the OpenWhisk name in a
prior
