Future of org.codehaus.mojo groupId

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
11 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Future of org.codehaus.mojo groupId

Julien HENRY
Hi guys,

Sorry if it was already discussed but do you know what will be the future of the groupId? Now that all plugins are moving to GitHub are we still allowed to deploy on central with groupId org.codehaus.mojo? AFAIK Maven conventions are that we should own the domain codehaus.org to deploy artifacts with groupId org.codehaus.*

And if the plan is to change the groupId, this is a big change since org.codehaus.mojo is hardcoded into Maven as a "default" groupId. It means for example that SonarQube users simply have to run mvn sonar:sonar without any special configuration. So I need to know what are the plan in order to prepare transition (may need to update documentation, Jenkins plugin, ...).

Thanks

Julien
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Future of org.codehaus.mojo groupId

Trygve Laugstøl codehaus
I think it is best to just keep the group id for all existing Mojos. Repackaging the code and having all clients is a lot of hassle for no gain. For new plugins, I guess they could use the new group id.

--
Trygve

On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 09:48:59AM +0000, Julien HENRY wrote:
> Hi guys,
> Sorry if it was already discussed but do you know what will be the future of the groupId? Now that all plugins are moving to GitHub are we still allowed to deploy on central with groupId org.codehaus.mojo? AFAIK Maven conventions are that we should own the domain codehaus.org to deploy artifacts with groupId org.codehaus.*
> And if the plan is to change the groupId, this is a big change since org.codehaus.mojo is hardcoded into Maven as a "default" groupId. It means for example that SonarQube users simply have to run mvn sonar:sonar without any special configuration. So I need to know what are the plan in order to prepare transition (may need to update documentation, Jenkins plugin, ...).
> Thanks
> Julien

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Future of org.codehaus.mojo groupId

Olivier Lamy
Agree. We must take take it easy for users.
Folks who managed central knows the situation. So IMHO this will not be a big problem.

On 4 May 2015 at 20:27, Trygve Laugstøl <[hidden email]> wrote:
I think it is best to just keep the group id for all existing Mojos. Repackaging the code and having all clients is a lot of hassle for no gain. For new plugins, I guess they could use the new group id.

--
Trygve

On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 09:48:59AM +0000, Julien HENRY wrote:
> Hi guys,
> Sorry if it was already discussed but do you know what will be the future of the groupId? Now that all plugins are moving to GitHub are we still allowed to deploy on central with groupId org.codehaus.mojo? AFAIK Maven conventions are that we should own the domain codehaus.org to deploy artifacts with groupId org.codehaus.*
> And if the plan is to change the groupId, this is a big change since org.codehaus.mojo is hardcoded into Maven as a "default" groupId. It means for example that SonarQube users simply have to run mvn sonar:sonar without any special configuration. So I need to know what are the plan in order to prepare transition (may need to update documentation, Jenkins plugin, ...).
> Thanks
> Julien

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email





--
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Future of org.codehaus.mojo groupId

Arnaud Héritier-2
+1 keep codehaus.org for existing plugins
perhaps prepare a new groupId with required resources (central sync ..) for new plugins and add it in the default list of plugins groups for future maven releases

On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Olivier Lamy <[hidden email]> wrote:
Agree. We must take take it easy for users.
Folks who managed central knows the situation. So IMHO this will not be a big problem.

On 4 May 2015 at 20:27, Trygve Laugstøl <[hidden email]> wrote:
I think it is best to just keep the group id for all existing Mojos. Repackaging the code and having all clients is a lot of hassle for no gain. For new plugins, I guess they could use the new group id.

--
Trygve

On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 09:48:59AM +0000, Julien HENRY wrote:
> Hi guys,
> Sorry if it was already discussed but do you know what will be the future of the groupId? Now that all plugins are moving to GitHub are we still allowed to deploy on central with groupId org.codehaus.mojo? AFAIK Maven conventions are that we should own the domain codehaus.org to deploy artifacts with groupId org.codehaus.*
> And if the plan is to change the groupId, this is a big change since org.codehaus.mojo is hardcoded into Maven as a "default" groupId. It means for example that SonarQube users simply have to run mvn sonar:sonar without any special configuration. So I need to know what are the plan in order to prepare transition (may need to update documentation, Jenkins plugin, ...).
> Thanks
> Julien

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email





--

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Future of org.codehaus.mojo groupId

Anders Hammar
Anyone who knows if it actually possible for us to keep the groupId when moving, as we don't own the codehaus.org domain? I think that most of us can agree on it's best (at least in short term) and easier to keep the same groupId. But can we really do that?
 
/Anders

On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Arnaud Héritier <[hidden email]> wrote:
+1 keep codehaus.org for existing plugins
perhaps prepare a new groupId with required resources (central sync ..) for new plugins and add it in the default list of plugins groups for future maven releases

On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Olivier Lamy <[hidden email]> wrote:
Agree. We must take take it easy for users.
Folks who managed central knows the situation. So IMHO this will not be a big problem.

On 4 May 2015 at 20:27, Trygve Laugstøl <[hidden email]> wrote:
I think it is best to just keep the group id for all existing Mojos. Repackaging the code and having all clients is a lot of hassle for no gain. For new plugins, I guess they could use the new group id.

--
Trygve

On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 09:48:59AM +0000, Julien HENRY wrote:
> Hi guys,
> Sorry if it was already discussed but do you know what will be the future of the groupId? Now that all plugins are moving to GitHub are we still allowed to deploy on central with groupId org.codehaus.mojo? AFAIK Maven conventions are that we should own the domain codehaus.org to deploy artifacts with groupId org.codehaus.*
> And if the plan is to change the groupId, this is a big change since org.codehaus.mojo is hardcoded into Maven as a "default" groupId. It means for example that SonarQube users simply have to run mvn sonar:sonar without any special configuration. So I need to know what are the plan in order to prepare transition (may need to update documentation, Jenkins plugin, ...).
> Thanks
> Julien

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email





--


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Future of org.codehaus.mojo groupId

jieryn
Apache, and Apache Maven, should just purchase the codehaus.org domain
name and set a permanent redirect to Apache Maven site.

Maybe Ben would be willing to give that last gift to the community and
transfer ownership to Apache. It expires on 2016-02-26 anyway..

On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 8:20 AM, Anders Hammar <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Anyone who knows if it actually possible for us to keep the groupId when
> moving, as we don't own the codehaus.org domain? I think that most of us can
> agree on it's best (at least in short term) and easier to keep the same
> groupId. But can we really do that?
>
> /Anders
>
> On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Arnaud Héritier <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>>
>> +1 keep codehaus.org for existing plugins
>> perhaps prepare a new groupId with required resources (central sync ..)
>> for new plugins and add it in the default list of plugins groups for future
>> maven releases
>>
>> On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Olivier Lamy <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Agree. We must take take it easy for users.
>>> Folks who managed central knows the situation. So IMHO this will not be a
>>> big problem.
>>>
>>> On 4 May 2015 at 20:27, Trygve Laugstøl <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I think it is best to just keep the group id for all existing Mojos.
>>>> Repackaging the code and having all clients is a lot of hassle for no gain.
>>>> For new plugins, I guess they could use the new group id.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Trygve
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 09:48:59AM +0000, Julien HENRY wrote:
>>>> > Hi guys,
>>>> > Sorry if it was already discussed but do you know what will be the
>>>> > future of the groupId? Now that all plugins are moving to GitHub are we
>>>> > still allowed to deploy on central with groupId org.codehaus.mojo? AFAIK
>>>> > Maven conventions are that we should own the domain codehaus.org to deploy
>>>> > artifacts with groupId org.codehaus.*
>>>> > And if the plan is to change the groupId, this is a big change since
>>>> > org.codehaus.mojo is hardcoded into Maven as a "default" groupId. It means
>>>> > for example that SonarQube users simply have to run mvn sonar:sonar without
>>>> > any special configuration. So I need to know what are the plan in order to
>>>> > prepare transition (may need to update documentation, Jenkins plugin, ...).
>>>> > Thanks
>>>> > Julien
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
>>>>
>>>>     http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Olivier Lamy
>>> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
>>
>>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Future of org.codehaus.mojo groupId

Benson Margulies


On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 8:35 AM, jieryn <[hidden email]> wrote:
Apache, and Apache Maven, should just purchase the codehaus.org domain
name and set a permanent redirect to Apache Maven site.

Why? Who cares? There's no important relationship between a Maven gid and a DNS domain name. Codehaus.org contained tons of non-Maven stuff, why should it move into Apache Maven?

 

Maybe Ben would be willing to give that last gift to the community and
transfer ownership to Apache. It expires on 2016-02-26 anyway..

On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 8:20 AM, Anders Hammar <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Anyone who knows if it actually possible for us to keep the groupId when
> moving, as we don't own the codehaus.org domain? I think that most of us can
> agree on it's best (at least in short term) and easier to keep the same
> groupId. But can we really do that?
>
> /Anders
>
> On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Arnaud Héritier <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>>
>> +1 keep codehaus.org for existing plugins
>> perhaps prepare a new groupId with required resources (central sync ..)
>> for new plugins and add it in the default list of plugins groups for future
>> maven releases
>>
>> On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Olivier Lamy <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Agree. We must take take it easy for users.
>>> Folks who managed central knows the situation. So IMHO this will not be a
>>> big problem.
>>>
>>> On 4 May 2015 at 20:27, Trygve Laugstøl <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I think it is best to just keep the group id for all existing Mojos.
>>>> Repackaging the code and having all clients is a lot of hassle for no gain.
>>>> For new plugins, I guess they could use the new group id.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Trygve
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 09:48:59AM +0000, Julien HENRY wrote:
>>>> > Hi guys,
>>>> > Sorry if it was already discussed but do you know what will be the
>>>> > future of the groupId? Now that all plugins are moving to GitHub are we
>>>> > still allowed to deploy on central with groupId org.codehaus.mojo? AFAIK
>>>> > Maven conventions are that we should own the domain codehaus.org to deploy
>>>> > artifacts with groupId org.codehaus.*
>>>> > And if the plan is to change the groupId, this is a big change since
>>>> > org.codehaus.mojo is hardcoded into Maven as a "default" groupId. It means
>>>> > for example that SonarQube users simply have to run mvn sonar:sonar without
>>>> > any special configuration. So I need to know what are the plan in order to
>>>> > prepare transition (may need to update documentation, Jenkins plugin, ...).
>>>> > Thanks
>>>> > Julien
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
>>>>
>>>>     http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Olivier Lamy
>>> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
>>
>>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Future of org.codehaus.mojo groupId

Benson Margulies


On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Benson Margulies <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 8:35 AM, jieryn <[hidden email]> wrote:
Apache, and Apache Maven, should just purchase the codehaus.org domain
name and set a permanent redirect to Apache Maven site.

Why? Who cares? There's no important relationship between a Maven gid and a DNS domain name. Codehaus.org contained tons of non-Maven stuff, why should it move into Apache Maven?

 

Maybe Ben would be willing to give that last gift to the community and
transfer ownership to Apache. It expires on 2016-02-26 anyway..

On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 8:20 AM, Anders Hammar <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Anyone who knows if it actually possible for us to keep the groupId when
> moving, as we don't own the codehaus.org domain? I think that most of us can
> agree on it's best (at least in short term) and easier to keep the same
> groupId. But can we really do that?
>
> /Anders
>
> On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Arnaud Héritier <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>>
>> +1 keep codehaus.org for existing plugins
>> perhaps prepare a new groupId with required resources (central sync ..)
>> for new plugins and add it in the default list of plugins groups for future
>> maven releases
>>
>> On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Olivier Lamy <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Agree. We must take take it easy for users.
>>> Folks who managed central knows the situation. So IMHO this will not be a
>>> big problem.
>>>
>>> On 4 May 2015 at 20:27, Trygve Laugstøl <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I think it is best to just keep the group id for all existing Mojos.
>>>> Repackaging the code and having all clients is a lot of hassle for no gain.
>>>> For new plugins, I guess they could use the new group id.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Trygve
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 09:48:59AM +0000, Julien HENRY wrote:
>>>> > Hi guys,
>>>> > Sorry if it was already discussed but do you know what will be the
>>>> > future of the groupId? Now that all plugins are moving to GitHub are we
>>>> > still allowed to deploy on central with groupId org.codehaus.mojo? AFAIK
>>>> > Maven conventions are that we should own the domain codehaus.org to deploy
>>>> > artifacts with groupId org.codehaus.*
>>>> > And if the plan is to change the groupId, this is a big change since
>>>> > org.codehaus.mojo is hardcoded into Maven as a "default" groupId. It means
>>>> > for example that SonarQube users simply have to run mvn sonar:sonar without
>>>> > any special configuration. So I need to know what are the plan in order to
>>>> > prepare transition (may need to update documentation, Jenkins plugin, ...).
>>>> > Thanks
>>>> > Julien
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
>>>>
>>>>     http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Olivier Lamy
>>> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
>>
>>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Future of org.codehaus.mojo groupId

keeganwitt
In reply to this post by Benson Margulies
I think he was suggesting Apache would be the caretaker of the domain, on behalf of both Codehaus projects that move to Apache and those that don't, and just the www.codehaus.org main page would redirect to an Apache page (though I'd prefer to redirect to an Apache page that describes the Codehaus shutdown and how things were migrated).  I'm not sure whether that's something they'd be up for or not.

-Keegan


On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Benson Margulies <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 8:35 AM, jieryn <[hidden email]> wrote:
Apache, and Apache Maven, should just purchase the codehaus.org domain
name and set a permanent redirect to Apache Maven site.

Why? Who cares? There's no important relationship between a Maven gid and a DNS domain name. Codehaus.org contained tons of non-Maven stuff, why should it move into Apache Maven?

 

Maybe Ben would be willing to give that last gift to the community and
transfer ownership to Apache. It expires on 2016-02-26 anyway..

On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 8:20 AM, Anders Hammar <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Anyone who knows if it actually possible for us to keep the groupId when
> moving, as we don't own the codehaus.org domain? I think that most of us can
> agree on it's best (at least in short term) and easier to keep the same
> groupId. But can we really do that?
>
> /Anders
>
> On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Arnaud Héritier <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>>
>> +1 keep codehaus.org for existing plugins
>> perhaps prepare a new groupId with required resources (central sync ..)
>> for new plugins and add it in the default list of plugins groups for future
>> maven releases
>>
>> On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Olivier Lamy <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Agree. We must take take it easy for users.
>>> Folks who managed central knows the situation. So IMHO this will not be a
>>> big problem.
>>>
>>> On 4 May 2015 at 20:27, Trygve Laugstøl <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I think it is best to just keep the group id for all existing Mojos.
>>>> Repackaging the code and having all clients is a lot of hassle for no gain.
>>>> For new plugins, I guess they could use the new group id.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Trygve
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 09:48:59AM +0000, Julien HENRY wrote:
>>>> > Hi guys,
>>>> > Sorry if it was already discussed but do you know what will be the
>>>> > future of the groupId? Now that all plugins are moving to GitHub are we
>>>> > still allowed to deploy on central with groupId org.codehaus.mojo? AFAIK
>>>> > Maven conventions are that we should own the domain codehaus.org to deploy
>>>> > artifacts with groupId org.codehaus.*
>>>> > And if the plan is to change the groupId, this is a big change since
>>>> > org.codehaus.mojo is hardcoded into Maven as a "default" groupId. It means
>>>> > for example that SonarQube users simply have to run mvn sonar:sonar without
>>>> > any special configuration. So I need to know what are the plan in order to
>>>> > prepare transition (may need to update documentation, Jenkins plugin, ...).
>>>> > Thanks
>>>> > Julien
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
>>>>
>>>>     http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Olivier Lamy
>>> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
>>
>>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Future of org.codehaus.mojo groupId

jieryn
Yes, sorry I wasn't clear. I meant if the groupId=codehaus.org is an
Apache issue without owning/controlling actual dns-a=codehaus.org,
then the easiest and fastest solution, for both users and devs, is
just to own the dns-a record. I am not talking about any complex
mirrorOf or relocating packages, I just meant 302 the www.codehaus.org
over to some Apache Maven page.

If Apache was the owner of the dns-a=codehaus.org, then all the legal
suits would be happy, all the developer boots would be happy, and
business carries on relatively uninterrupted where we can have more
time to decide if/how to do a migration. Without pressure, and without
causing a big pain for all the non-infra folks just trying to get
stuff done.

On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 8:44 AM, Keegan Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I think he was suggesting Apache would be the caretaker of the domain, on
> behalf of both Codehaus projects that move to Apache and those that don't,
> and just the www.codehaus.org main page would redirect to an Apache page
> (though I'd prefer to redirect to an Apache page that describes the Codehaus
> shutdown and how things were migrated).  I'm not sure whether that's
> something they'd be up for or not.
>
> -Keegan
>
>
> On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Benson Margulies <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 8:35 AM, jieryn <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Apache, and Apache Maven, should just purchase the codehaus.org domain
>>> name and set a permanent redirect to Apache Maven site.
>>
>>
>> Why? Who cares? There's no important relationship between a Maven gid and
>> a DNS domain name. Codehaus.org contained tons of non-Maven stuff, why
>> should it move into Apache Maven?
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe Ben would be willing to give that last gift to the community and
>>> transfer ownership to Apache. It expires on 2016-02-26 anyway..
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 8:20 AM, Anders Hammar <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> > Anyone who knows if it actually possible for us to keep the groupId
>>> > when
>>> > moving, as we don't own the codehaus.org domain? I think that most of
>>> > us can
>>> > agree on it's best (at least in short term) and easier to keep the same
>>> > groupId. But can we really do that?
>>> >
>>> > /Anders
>>> >
>>> > On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Arnaud Héritier
>>> > <[hidden email]>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> +1 keep codehaus.org for existing plugins
>>> >> perhaps prepare a new groupId with required resources (central sync
>>> >> ..)
>>> >> for new plugins and add it in the default list of plugins groups for
>>> >> future
>>> >> maven releases
>>> >>
>>> >> On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Olivier Lamy <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Agree. We must take take it easy for users.
>>> >>> Folks who managed central knows the situation. So IMHO this will not
>>> >>> be a
>>> >>> big problem.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On 4 May 2015 at 20:27, Trygve Laugstøl <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> I think it is best to just keep the group id for all existing Mojos.
>>> >>>> Repackaging the code and having all clients is a lot of hassle for
>>> >>>> no gain.
>>> >>>> For new plugins, I guess they could use the new group id.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> --
>>> >>>> Trygve
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 09:48:59AM +0000, Julien HENRY wrote:
>>> >>>> > Hi guys,
>>> >>>> > Sorry if it was already discussed but do you know what will be the
>>> >>>> > future of the groupId? Now that all plugins are moving to GitHub
>>> >>>> > are we
>>> >>>> > still allowed to deploy on central with groupId org.codehaus.mojo?
>>> >>>> > AFAIK
>>> >>>> > Maven conventions are that we should own the domain codehaus.org
>>> >>>> > to deploy
>>> >>>> > artifacts with groupId org.codehaus.*
>>> >>>> > And if the plan is to change the groupId, this is a big change
>>> >>>> > since
>>> >>>> > org.codehaus.mojo is hardcoded into Maven as a "default" groupId.
>>> >>>> > It means
>>> >>>> > for example that SonarQube users simply have to run mvn
>>> >>>> > sonar:sonar without
>>> >>>> > any special configuration. So I need to know what are the plan in
>>> >>>> > order to
>>> >>>> > prepare transition (may need to update documentation, Jenkins
>>> >>>> > plugin, ...).
>>> >>>> > Thanks
>>> >>>> > Julien
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> >>>> To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>     http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> --
>>> >>> Olivier Lamy
>>> >>> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
>>>
>>>     http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
>>>
>>>
>>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Future of org.codehaus.mojo groupId

Benson Margulies


On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 9:05 AM, jieryn <[hidden email]> wrote:
Yes, sorry I wasn't clear. I meant if the groupId=codehaus.org is an
Apache issue without owning/controlling actual dns-a=codehaus.org,
then the easiest and fastest solution, for both users and devs, is
just to own the dns-a record. I am not talking about any complex
mirrorOf or relocating packages, I just meant 302 the www.codehaus.org
over to some Apache Maven page.

If Apache was the owner of the dns-a=codehaus.org, then all the legal
suits would be happy, all the developer boots would be happy, and
business carries on relatively uninterrupted where we can have more
time to decide if/how to do a migration. Without pressure, and without
causing a big pain for all the non-infra folks just trying to get
stuff done.

No one has to 'own' a Maven groupId. There's no trademark issue; it's below the level of trademark. Suits don't care. It's just a string which happens, by convention, to often correspond to DNS addresses. As for www.codehaus.org, I doubt that the board is interested in being a foster-parent here, but I could be wrong.
 

On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 8:44 AM, Keegan Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I think he was suggesting Apache would be the caretaker of the domain, on
> behalf of both Codehaus projects that move to Apache and those that don't,
> and just the www.codehaus.org main page would redirect to an Apache page
> (though I'd prefer to redirect to an Apache page that describes the Codehaus
> shutdown and how things were migrated).  I'm not sure whether that's
> something they'd be up for or not.
>
> -Keegan
>
>
> On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Benson Margulies <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 8:35 AM, jieryn <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Apache, and Apache Maven, should just purchase the codehaus.org domain
>>> name and set a permanent redirect to Apache Maven site.
>>
>>
>> Why? Who cares? There's no important relationship between a Maven gid and
>> a DNS domain name. Codehaus.org contained tons of non-Maven stuff, why
>> should it move into Apache Maven?
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe Ben would be willing to give that last gift to the community and
>>> transfer ownership to Apache. It expires on 2016-02-26 anyway..
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 8:20 AM, Anders Hammar <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> > Anyone who knows if it actually possible for us to keep the groupId
>>> > when
>>> > moving, as we don't own the codehaus.org domain? I think that most of
>>> > us can
>>> > agree on it's best (at least in short term) and easier to keep the same
>>> > groupId. But can we really do that?
>>> >
>>> > /Anders
>>> >
>>> > On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Arnaud Héritier
>>> > <[hidden email]>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> +1 keep codehaus.org for existing plugins
>>> >> perhaps prepare a new groupId with required resources (central sync
>>> >> ..)
>>> >> for new plugins and add it in the default list of plugins groups for
>>> >> future
>>> >> maven releases
>>> >>
>>> >> On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Olivier Lamy <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Agree. We must take take it easy for users.
>>> >>> Folks who managed central knows the situation. So IMHO this will not
>>> >>> be a
>>> >>> big problem.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On 4 May 2015 at 20:27, Trygve Laugstøl <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> I think it is best to just keep the group id for all existing Mojos.
>>> >>>> Repackaging the code and having all clients is a lot of hassle for
>>> >>>> no gain.
>>> >>>> For new plugins, I guess they could use the new group id.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> --
>>> >>>> Trygve
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 09:48:59AM +0000, Julien HENRY wrote:
>>> >>>> > Hi guys,
>>> >>>> > Sorry if it was already discussed but do you know what will be the
>>> >>>> > future of the groupId? Now that all plugins are moving to GitHub
>>> >>>> > are we
>>> >>>> > still allowed to deploy on central with groupId org.codehaus.mojo?
>>> >>>> > AFAIK
>>> >>>> > Maven conventions are that we should own the domain codehaus.org
>>> >>>> > to deploy
>>> >>>> > artifacts with groupId org.codehaus.*
>>> >>>> > And if the plan is to change the groupId, this is a big change
>>> >>>> > since
>>> >>>> > org.codehaus.mojo is hardcoded into Maven as a "default" groupId.
>>> >>>> > It means
>>> >>>> > for example that SonarQube users simply have to run mvn
>>> >>>> > sonar:sonar without
>>> >>>> > any special configuration. So I need to know what are the plan in
>>> >>>> > order to
>>> >>>> > prepare transition (may need to update documentation, Jenkins
>>> >>>> > plugin, ...).
>>> >>>> > Thanks
>>> >>>> > Julien
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> >>>> To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>     http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> --
>>> >>> Olivier Lamy
>>> >>> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
>>>
>>>     http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
>>>
>>>
>>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email



Loading...