And remember: like Apache Subversion, the project can keep a
*compatibility* layer around using the old name. But "all" new development
work would occur under the new org.apache name...
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 11:34 AM, John D. Ament
wrote:
> One caveat - if your packages are "com.theoldcompany.
On Aug 4, 2017 10:37, "Andy Seaborne" wrote:
On 04/08/17 13:09, Shane Curcuru wrote:
> John D. Ament wrote on 8/4/17 7:59 AM:
>
>> On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 7:17 AM Shane Curcuru
>> wrote:
>>
> ...snip...
>
>> - Other reverse domain names *really* should change to org.apache;
>>> otherwise it's
On 04/08/17 13:09, Shane Curcuru wrote:
John D. Ament wrote on 8/4/17 7:59 AM:
On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 7:17 AM Shane Curcuru wrote:
...snip...
- Other reverse domain names *really* should change to org.apache;
otherwise it's just confusing.
Agreed. The one caveat to all this is the imple
John D. Ament wrote on 8/4/17 7:59 AM:
> On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 7:17 AM Shane Curcuru wrote:
...snip...
>> - Other reverse domain names *really* should change to org.apache;
>> otherwise it's just confusing.
>>
>>
> Agreed. The one caveat to all this is the implementation of javax.
> namespace wh
On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 7:17 AM Shane Curcuru wrote:
> Andy Seaborne wrote on 8/4/17 5:00 AM:
> > On 03/08/17 23:20, John D. Ament wrote:
> >> Which must's do you see greg?
> >>
> >> On Aug 3, 2017 1:09 PM, "Greg Trasuk" wrote:
> >>
> >>> Does this actually need to be policy? What’s the harm to
On 4 August 2017 at 12:17, Shane Curcuru wrote:
> Andy Seaborne wrote on 8/4/17 5:00 AM:
>> On 03/08/17 23:20, John D. Ament wrote:
>>> Which must's do you see greg?
>>>
>>> On Aug 3, 2017 1:09 PM, "Greg Trasuk" wrote:
>>>
Does this actually need to be policy? What’s the harm to the foundat
Andy Seaborne wrote on 8/4/17 5:00 AM:
> On 03/08/17 23:20, John D. Ament wrote:
>> Which must's do you see greg?
>>
>> On Aug 3, 2017 1:09 PM, "Greg Trasuk" wrote:
>>
>>> Does this actually need to be policy? What’s the harm to the foundation
>>> if a project continues to use a non-Apache packag
On 03/08/17 23:20, John D. Ament wrote:
Which must's do you see greg?
On Aug 3, 2017 1:09 PM, "Greg Trasuk" wrote:
Does this actually need to be policy? What’s the harm to the foundation
if a project continues to use a non-Apache package name, assuming that the
code was donated appropriately
When Storm was incubating, our package names started with backtype.* and
storm.* and it stayed that way through graduation and there was never any
mention of a need to change. In fact, Storm only moved to org.apache.* with the
1.0 release in April 2016, about 1.5 years after graduation.
There a
Which must's do you see greg?
On Aug 3, 2017 1:09 PM, "Greg Trasuk" wrote:
> Does this actually need to be policy? What’s the harm to the foundation
> if a project continues to use a non-Apache package name, assuming that the
> code was donated appropriately?
>
> Certainly, it should be a goal
Thanks all for your replies. We decided to bite the bullet and do it since
we are half way already through our work. We will try to address backward
incompatibilities via package shims, and special handling of configs.
On a side note, I think for matters such as these Incubator should document
the
Does this actually need to be policy? What’s the harm to the foundation if a
project continues to use a non-Apache package name, assuming that the code was
donated appropriately?
Certainly, it should be a goal for all projects to use o.a.* package names, but
if you look around the Foundation
One caveat - if your packages are "com.theoldcompany.someproject" they
should be renamed to "org.apache.someproject" before graduation. If you
have "org.someproject" already or just "someproject" as your package names,
that's not a naming issue so I don't see that ever blocking graduation.
John
>
>
> On Aug 3, 2017, at 12:25, Alex Harui wrote:
>
> OK, so to summarize a more refined recommendation:
>
> 1) package names with reverse domains MUST be renamed before graduation or
> have an IPMC approved plan for renaming
NetBeans uses org.netbeans, and the domain is also being donated to
OK, so to summarize a more refined recommendation:
1) package names with reverse domains MUST be renamed before graduation or
have an IPMC approved plan for renaming
2) Projects who expect that their future users outnumber current users are
highly encouraged to rename packages
3) Other projects ar
On 03/08/17 15:51, Julian Hyde wrote:
It rarely comes down to the IPMC or the Board dictating how a project names its
java classes (does anyone recall an instance?), so it’s mainly the project’s
discretion. In my opinion, where the project is on its adoption curve is an
important considerati
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 8:42 AM Shane Curcuru wrote:
> John D. Ament wrote on 8/2/17 9:13 PM:
> > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 8:54 PM Roman Shaposhnik
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Abhishek Tiwari
> wrote:
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> In regards to the recently incubated project -
Alex Harui wrote on 8/3/17 10:37 AM:
> From the peanut gallery:
>
> Does the PPMC get to decide what constitutes a "very good reason" or does
> the IPMC and after graduation, the board?
>
> Flex has not changed its packages in the 5 years at Apache. We felt
> backward compatibility was and is a
It rarely comes down to the IPMC or the Board dictating how a project names its
java classes (does anyone recall an instance?), so it’s mainly the project’s
discretion. In my opinion, where the project is on its adoption curve is an
important consideration.
Most projects that enter the incubato
From the peanut gallery:
Does the PPMC get to decide what constitutes a "very good reason" or does
the IPMC and after graduation, the board?
Flex has not changed its packages in the 5 years at Apache. We felt
backward compatibility was and is a "very good reason". It was way more
important to n
John D. Ament wrote on 8/2/17 9:13 PM:
> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 8:54 PM Roman Shaposhnik
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Abhishek Tiwari wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> In regards to the recently incubated project - Gobblin, we were wondering
>>> about the policy around renaming Java pa
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 2:42 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> On 03/08/17 05:13, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 6:13 PM, John D. Ament
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 8:54 PM Roman Shaposhnik
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Abhishek Tiwari wrote:
>
On 03/08/17 05:13, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 6:13 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 8:54 PM Roman Shaposhnik
wrote:
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Abhishek Tiwari wrote:
Hi all,
In regards to the recently incubated project - Gobblin, we were wondering
a
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 6:13 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 8:54 PM Roman Shaposhnik
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Abhishek Tiwari wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > In regards to the recently incubated project - Gobblin, we were wondering
>> > about the policy aroun
> Or to put it a different way: during your eventual graduation this
> question will be
> asked and you better have a really, really good explanation if you're
> still using
> something other than o.a.
In fact, Apache RocketMQ Community has ever struggle with this issue. Consider
more than 100 s
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 8:54 PM Roman Shaposhnik
wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Abhishek Tiwari wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > In regards to the recently incubated project - Gobblin, we were wondering
> > about the policy around renaming Java package names to org.apache.* Is
> it a
> > mand
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Abhishek Tiwari wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> In regards to the recently incubated project - Gobblin, we were wondering
> about the policy around renaming Java package names to org.apache.* Is it a
> mandatory requirement or good to have?
>
> The reason to ask this is that w
Hi all,
In regards to the recently incubated project - Gobblin, we were wondering
about the policy around renaming Java package names to org.apache.* Is it a
mandatory requirement or good to have?
The reason to ask this is that while we see many projects have migrated to
use org.apache.* package
28 matches
Mail list logo
