Nick Boldt wrote:
Bjorn et al.,
I was thinking more about the branding of this new component, and since
I've been having a similar conversation with my GSoC student, Michael
Robb, about his work to create wizards for generating project meta
(eg., examples feature/plugin stub, tests feature/plugin stub, SDK
feature stub, and .releng project) [1], it seems like his work ought to
live in Dash too, rather than in o.e.soc as this is entirely
complementary to the work involved in a common builder.
Sure, I'm good with that.
We had discussed calling his component Athena [2] in reference to her
creation story (and the idea of projects "springing forth, fully
formed"), but hadn't fully decided on "athena" vs. "metagen".
If you're asking me, I'd go with athena as metagen sounds like some
science fiction mutation problem, at least to my over-active
imagination.
I like the name and its evocative branding, so I'd like to put it to
the larger Dash committer community.
Should "metagen", currently a GSoC
project [1], and the new "commonbuilder" be united under the
org.eclipse.dash.athena or org.eclipse.athena namespace?
I'm not sure why we'd merge the two as one component - I seem them as
different sides of the same coin: commonbuilder is the server side code
and athena is the tool side code. ?
(Michael, this would mean moving your code from the SOC cvs repo to
Dash one, and using o.e.(dash.)athena.metagen.* for your code. We'd
also have to vote you in as a committer, but that's trivial.)
[1] http://wiki.eclipse.org/JET_Transforms/Wizards_for_creating_project_meta_data
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athena#The_Olympian_version
Thoughts?
Good thoughts.
--
[end of message]
|
