Well, I'd like to see commons have some consistency to it. I would rather every component within commons follow the same naming conventions w.r.t. packages and I guess now artifactIds (I didn't realize that was an issue within maven until I did my little test tonight). Maybe I'm just too much of a neat freak. :)
On 2/16/08, Emmanuel Bourg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > James Carman a écrit : > > > I understand what you mean (that changing it isn't really necessary > > right now), but maybe we should try to be consistent. If we're going > > to have to start changing the artifactId going forward (since we won't > > be changing the groupId) anyway, then maybe we should just go ahead > > and start changing it now. > > I see you point, however Commons Configuration has the rare opportunity > to keep its original artifactId where other components would be forced > to change it (that's commons-io, email and jci who have already released > a revision under the new groupId). It would be clever to take this > opportunity and keep the name IMHO. > > Emmanuel Bourg > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
