Re: [DISCUSS] Significance of Artifact Names

2017-01-05 Thread Paul King
+1 from me too. For Groovy, we had a discussion internally and with our mentors. The src archive and website disclaimer seemed to be the things that were cared about from a legal point of view and so that is what we renamed. For us, "convenience binaries" were something that should be

Re: [DISCUSS] Significance of Artifact Names

2017-01-04 Thread Roman Shaposhnik
Huge +1 to what Cédric has said. Thanks, Roman. On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 6:20 AM, Cédric Champeau wrote: > Cross-posting since I missed this topic in the first place. My apologies > for the duplicate: > > I would argue that one of the Foundation mottos is "community

Re: [DISCUSS] Significance of Artifact Names

2017-01-04 Thread Cédric Champeau
Cross-posting since I missed this topic in the first place. My apologies for the duplicate: I would argue that one of the Foundation mottos is "community first". In that sense, enforcing a policy like that is not thinking about users. It's adding a burden they don't care about. I am strongly

Re: [DISCUSS] Significance of Artifact Names

2017-01-03 Thread Alex Harui
Sorry for top-posting. It's always been interesting to me that the ASF says that it only releases source code, but still has policy about the contents of convenience binaries such as [6]. So, I suppose the ASF could dictate naming of binary packages. I know very little about Maven, but in my

Re: [DISCUSS] Significance of Artifact Names

2017-01-03 Thread Josh Elser
John D. Ament wrote: So why am I harping on this problem? The incubator has a series of guides, which are partially treated as policy and partially treated as advice. Many of these guides remain with large notions of being draft only, not finalized, I want to try to get these draft documents

Re: [DISCUSS] Significance of Artifact Names

2017-01-03 Thread John D. Ament
On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 10:57 PM Craig Russell wrote: > I think there is an additional item that falls into the same category. > > What are Apache guidelines/policies regarding maven group ids and java > package names? > > Many projects use org.apache.foo as the group id for

Re: [DISCUSS] Significance of Artifact Names

2017-01-03 Thread Craig Russell
I think there is an additional item that falls into the same category. What are Apache guidelines/policies regarding maven group ids and java package names? Many projects use org.apache.foo as the group id for projects and org.apache.foo.subproject.InterfaceName for class names. Others use

[DISCUSS] Significance of Artifact Names

2017-01-03 Thread John D. Ament
All, This is a follow up to recent threads, purposely made a bit broader to encourage more discussions. First to set down some facts about what's been established: 1. Incubator policy [1] states that a podling's release meets two requirements, include "incubating" in the release archive's file