incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Leo Simons <>
Subject Re: JDO2 Snapshots
Date Sun, 07 Aug 2005 21:10:46 GMT
On 07-08-2005 05:41, "Craig Russell" <Craig.Russell@Sun.COM> wrote:
>>> If the group name is intended to reflect the actual root package name, then
>>> org.apache.jdo would seem correct. If it's not, perhaps someone can offer
>>> some pointers to where the discussion took place so I could understand it
>>> better.
>> This is a purely policy decision - I went with the project name in my
>> original proposal (basically matching the subversion structure), but
>> Jakarta Commons folks preferred to keep the shorter name that matched
>> the package which makes sense. Especially given that jdo is unlikely
>> to crop up as a different project outside of DB, org.apache.jdo sounds
>> fine.
> Good. The "official" package prefix org.apache.jdo is actually shorter than
> the project name org.apache.incubator.jdo or org.apache.db.jdo. So we'll plan
> to use group id org.apache.jdo. And it sounds like as long as we include
> SNAPSHOT in the artifact id we should be able to publish on the apache web
> site (not the ibiblio site until official approval).

Uhm. Where did you hear that?

The releases policies for incubated apache projects were written because
apache wants to make very clear to all users that we're dealing with stuff
that is under incubation. Its the responsibility of the JDO project to
ensure that happen for the JDO stuff.

While we can *probably* bend or hack the current release policies a little
to accommodate fancy repository-based auto-downloading features, this basic
goal remains intact.

In that light, having "incubating" in the jar filename (whether part of
groupid, artifactid or version or something else I don't care; I would
personally say putting it in the version make sense as "incubation" is
hopefully a temporary state) seems like a minimum. Otherwise, people just
copy-paste a maven project.xml snippet and never realise what they have is
not "official" apache stuff (yet). We don't want that.

As for the ibiblio site, AFAIK they are not officially afilliated with nor
endorsed by apache so there is no "official" approval of what goes on there.
We do talk and I believe the maven people have a prety well-established
process for interacting with ibiblio, but that ain't "official" in the same
sense that the incubation process is "official". The incubator PMC certainly
is not going to approve what happens on the servers -- its not
our responsibility. We might complain if someone puts up stuff over there
that doesn't belong there (in all likelyhood someone will just pull Brett's
hair or somethin; :-P) though.

Hope that clears up a few things :-)



To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message