IMHO I think that is good thing Regards
--Filippo 2013/2/28 Stuart McCulloch <[email protected]> > During the "[DISCUSS] rename maven-bundle-plugin to bnd-maven-plugin" > thread Marcel and Guillaume came up with counter-suggestions involving > contributing the maven-bundle-plugin to Apache Maven. > > This idea has certain advantages - the plugin name would not be an issue > (assuming the Maven team were ok with 'bundle'==OSGi, as there are other > interpretations of 'bundle' such as resource bundles) and there's then a > chance we could get the 'bundle' packaging type recognized by default by > Maven (though this wouldn't necessarily be a done deal). It would also mean > that people wouldn't need to specify a groupId when adding the plugin to > their pom.xml and you could use the short form of the plugin name from the > command-line. > > The disadvantages are this would still involve a change of plugin > coordinates (org.apache.felix -> org.apache.maven.plugins) and any changes > or improvements would have to go through the Apache Maven project. > > There's also a question of whether the Apache Maven team would accept the > contribution... > > WDYT? > > -- > Cheers, Stuart > > On 28 Feb 2013, at 13:03, Marcel Offermans wrote: > > > 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] > >
