Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
[technology-pmc] Re: [egit-dev] JGit projection creatoin?

I think that Mik brings up some excellent points that should be considered before you move forward.

Having said that, it is the opinion of the EMO that the "org.eclipse.jgit" namespace is acceptable, given the following:

1) We don't believe that any other org.eclipse project can be reasonably expected to want the "jgit" name; 2) JGit is an established name that is--effectively--already owned by the project team; 3) JGit can reasonably be used standalone (i.e. completely separate from any other org.eclipse code); and 4) org.eclipse.egit.jgit... does seem a little redundant and doesn't provide any value to the community, adopters, or contributors.

If you believe that we are wrong on any of these four counts, please let me know. As always, let me know if you have any questions.

I'll echo the opinion on behalf of the Technology PMC (copied) as well.



Mik Kersten wrote:
If others decide that it's best to have "org.eclipse.jgit" go against the namespace rule, I won't object and understand the reasoning.  But repeating what I previously stated, do keep in mind that in addition to being inconsistent, it gets annoying to have the two parts of the same project always appear apart from each other in bundle listings and any other alphabetical list.  And it's additionally confusing to those not familiar with the projects, eg, contributors and integrators.

While I agree that we should converge now, I don't think these naming discussions are a waste of time, because namespace decisions of this sort have permanence. Seven years ago, when we moved AspectJ from PARC to Eclipse, we decided to go with "org.aspectj" and "org.ecipse.ajdt" as the project namespaces, for the exact reasons raised on this thread. It hasn't been terrible, but it's pretty clear that it wasn't the right choice, and we're stuck with those namespaces indefinitely.
My preference in naming and other decisions of this sort is to go with the preference of the project lead or key contributors, since they're the ones who tend to keep a project's conventions consistent for the target audience, so I'll step aside now.


-----Original Message-----
From: egit-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:egit-dev-
bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Wayne Beaton
Sent: September-28-09 8:32 AM
To: Chris Aniszczyk
Cc: Anne Jacko; EGit developer discussion
Subject: Re: [egit-dev] JGit projection creatoin?

I'm looking into this. Your patience is appreciated.



Chris Aniszczyk wrote:
On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 12:26 PM, Alex Blewitt
<mailto:alex.blewitt@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

    Don't think it caused offence, and FWIW the goal of JGit is still
    to be an IDW neutral later for other Git clients. Also, don't
    offense at the name - it's just that all source projects at are in org.eclipse subpackages, much like Apache
    projects are org.apache.

Alex is correct, 'org.eclipse' has to be there. The general policy is
that the Eclipse project shortname is used ie., 'org.eclipse.egit' to
prevent namespace stomping.

I think the solution is simple, we'll just email the EMO asking an
exception for the namespace rule. I think this is fine since JGit is
subproject and is meant to be used standalone.

org.eclipse.jgit -- this is for the JGit library, standalone
org.eclipse.egit.core -- core egit
org.eclipse.egit.ui -- ui egit

Thoughts? I've cc'd the EMO.


Chris Aniszczyk | EclipseSource Austin | +1 860 839 2465 |
egit-dev mailing list

Back to the top