On Feb 28, 2013, at 13:43 , Stuart McCulloch <[email protected]> wrote: > On 28 Feb 2013, at 07:05, fbalicchia wrote: > >> I think it is the best choice to follow the naming convention. >> What I do not understand is why plugins can't be hosted by Apache > > The Apache Maven team prefer to keep the maven-NNN-plugin naming for plugins > developed and maintained by them (ie. those with groupId > org.apache.maven.plugins) whereas Maven plugins developed by other Apache (or > non-Apache) projects are encouraged to use NNN-maven-plugin naming. The idea > is to help avoid confusion about which plugins are directly supported by > Apache Maven team and which are supported elsewhere: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg128850.html > > While renaming the plugin would be a courtesy to the Apache Maven team, it is > not mandatory if it would cause problems for downstream users - hence this > discussion thread.
I would say, our users come first. Renaming the plugin causes them problems for no reason (to them) so let's not do that. Instead, we could also solve this by donating the plugin to the Apache Maven project. Greetings, Marcel --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
