I'm sorry, I've missed this message! I'm fine with that. Following up with James F. concerns about "grails-security-spring" VS "grails-spring-security" though, I agree it is probably better to keep "spring-security" to avoid confusion. In case of other security libraries it could just be eg. "grails-shiro-*" so we end up not having a group for security (which by the way at the moment it will not be full with different libraries as is the case with "spring-data-*")
Gianluca On Thu, 20 Mar 2025 at 17:58, James Daugherty <jdaughe...@jdresources.net.invalid> wrote: > @Gianluca, were you ok with the latest draft? > https://github.com/apache/grails-core/pull/14080 > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 12:56 PM Gianluca Sartori <g.sart...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Okay sounds good > > > > Gianluca > > > > > > On Thu, 20 Mar 2025 at 17:52, James Daugherty > > <jdaughe...@jdresources.net.invalid> wrote: > > > > > I don't think we should rename any repositories until builds are fully > > > working. It will delay the 7 release process otherwise. The goal of > > this > > > discussion is specific to the groupid / artifactid. > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 12:46 PM Gianluca Sartori <g.sart...@gmail.com > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Yes, I am just talking about the repository name, not the groupId or > > > > artifactId. > > > > The repository name can be any name available in our Git namespace, > it > > > will > > > > not conflict or influence any other repository name on any other > GitHub > > > > namespace. > > > > > > > > Gianluca > > > > > >
