Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] [Maven/Tycho] Suggested groupId

[Jesse McConnell <jesse.mcconnell@xxxxxxxxx>]

normal people use org.eclipse.<project> as the groupId and an
artifactId of something like jetty-server

anything other then that is not following normal maven conventions...

that being said there has been discussion about using that
org.eclipse:org.eclipse.jetty.jetty-server:<version> notation to allow
for reverse mappings to bundles...

Also, I'll just note that jetty maven artifacts are not signed in
maven central, we generate our signed artifacts afterwards as part of
a separate build process that operates off of the released tag and
generates the bits and pieces that helios and indigo builds consume.

the p2 repositories we publish do contain signed artifacts and follow
eclipse requirements

cheers,
jesse

--
jesse mcconnell
jesse.mcconnell@xxxxxxxxx



On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 11:37, Jeff McAffer <jeff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> There is also confusion over the artifact id.  Mostly I've seen people using org.eclipse.foo.bar (ie. the fully artifact file name without version and .jar) as the artifact name.  However, Chris points out that egit is using some other convention.
>
> Jeff
>
> On 2010-11-10, at 12:19 PM, Stephan Herrmann wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
>> cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
> cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
>