On 19 December 2011 08:53, Jörg Schaible <joerg.schai...@scalaris.com> wrote: > Hi Phil, > > Phil Steitz wrote: > >> On 12/17/11 7:55 AM, Gary Gregory wrote: >>> Another slightly odd looking thing is to have >>> org.apache.commons.sanselan.common as a package. There is also a util >>> packages. I wonder I this stuff can be moved around in some way that >>> looks and feels less scattered. >>> >>> Op Ed: >>> On a different tak, personally, I've never liked sanselan as a package >>> in the [commons] universe. I want to just see org.apache.commons.image >>> or some such. Just like we have .io, .lang, .net, and so on. All >>> commons packages are functional IIRC, not some goofy name. >> >> +1 - we talked about this IIRC when [sanselan] was incubating and >> decided not to force the name change. I think it was to make it >> easier for then current users and developers to keep engagement / >> momentum. I think its worth asking again now that it has moved into >> Commons and repackaging is going to be necessary anyway. Why not >> just change to o.a.c.image? > > +1 > > IMHO renaming it to "image" will attract more users, simply because everyone > then knows what to expect from this component simply by looking at the name.
I presume we are also talking about renaming the component? So the website becomes http://commons.apache.org/image/ ? And likewise for SVN? If so, then I think the proposal needs a general Commons vote to become valid. We can add a redirect for the web-site (but not for SVN AFAIK - that would have to be a readme). > - Jörg > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
