Disclaimer : I have not yet looked at the Asciidoc style. Again I promise to look at it when I come back from PTO. That said I want to make certain that the developed style matches the new ORM documentation style. The design team at Red Hat spent a lot of time helping us develop that. Specifically I mean the banners and general color scheme.
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 9:43 AM Guillaume Smet <guillaume.s...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 3:26 PM, Yoann Rodiere <yrodi...@redhat.com> > wrote: > > > > > On 30 January 2017 at 13:58, Guillaume Smet <guillaume.s...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> Note that the current version of hibernate-commons-annotations is > >> org.hibernate.common (without the s at the end, not org.hibernate as > Yoann > >> stated it). > >> > > You're right. Wouldn't the simplest solution be to use the same groupId > > (without a "s") in our new repo? > > > > I'm not so sure it's a good idea to share the groupId while it being a > completely different project. > > I'm starting to think that maybe the good groupId for these common internal > projects could be org.hibernate.*internal*. We plan them to be purely > internal artifacts and we might as well state it. > > What do you all think about it? > > > > Moving hibernate-commons-annotations is not such a good idea IMHO: > >> - it's licensed under the LGPL so it would force us to use this license > >> (or > >> relicense it or having different licenses for the submodules but they > are > >> all bad ideas) > >> > > > > It sure seems complicated. But relicensing from LGPL to ASL2 may not be > > such a big deal, since LGPL seems stricter than ASL2. > > Couldn't we simply dual-license the whole repository under ASL2/LGPL? > That > > way, previous users wouldn't need to be aware of the change, and new > users > > could choose to comply with whichever suits them best. > > > > Yeah, dual licensing might be the better solution. But I think it would be > OK with ASL2. Anyway, let's wait for Emmanuel to decide on this subject. > > > > - we would release a new version of this module each time we want to > >> upgrade the theme and I don't think it would be readable for consumers > of > >> this preexisting artifact. > >> > >> The latter point is what worries me about centralizing all the utils in > >> the > >> same repo with the same lifecycle. > >> > > > > We already got through this discussion, but let's sum it up: > > > > Not exactly. I was specifically talking about hibernate-commons-annotations > as it's a different beast: it's already released and people might use it in > their projects. Thus I don't think it's a good idea to think of it as a > purely internal project. > > IMHO, it makes a difference. > > -- > Guillaume > _______________________________________________ > hibernate-dev mailing list > hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev > _______________________________________________ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
