[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] [Maven/Tycho] Suggested groupId
|
So according to https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=288644
the groupId must be org.eclipse and thus org.eclipse.egit is illegal.
But also several comments on https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=283745
speak for org.eclipse.<project>, both as a wish and as the status-quo.
It seems, not everybody is convinced that the decision in bug 288644
is the way to go. And not everybody knows about the decision.
Stephan
On Wednesday, November 10, 2010 06:08:11 pm Oberhuber, Martin wrote:
> See also
>
> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=288644
> <https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=288644>
> "Decide of group ids for Eclipse Maven artifacts"
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Martin Oberhuber, Senior Member of Technical Staff, Wind River
> direct +43.662.457915.85 fax +43.662.457915.6
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Chris
> Aniszczyk
> Sent: Mittwoch, 10. November 2010 18:06
> To: Cross project issues
> Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] [Maven/Tycho] Suggested groupId
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 12:03 PM, Mickael Istria
> <mickael.istria@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> I am working a little bit on trying Tycho for SWTBot build. And
> I got a question of "good practice", if good practices with Tycho
> already exist. The question is: What should be the groupId ?
> IMHO, the groupId should reflect the Bundle-Vendor / Provider
> attribute, and AFAIAA the release train says the Provider should
> "Eclipse.org - [Project]", for example "Eclipse.org - SWTBot". Then, I'd
> go for org.eclipse.swtbot. Does this sound good, or should I prefer
> org.eclipse ?
>
>
>
> In EGit/JGit land we use 'org.eclipse.<project>'
>
> <groupId>org.eclipse.egit</groupId>
> <artifactId>egit-parent</artifactId>
>
> So I'm for that approach.
>
>
