Am 2014-10-11 um 21:28 schrieb Robert Munteanu:
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 10:23 PM, Michael Osipov wrote:
Well said...
I guess it is all about the order of the words: Maven X Plugin. It simply
implies that is provided by the Maven team. Which is not.
But is the order relevant in the artifactId
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 10:23 PM, Michael Osipov wrote:
>
> Well said...
> I guess it is all about the order of the words: Maven X Plugin. It simply
> implies that is provided by the Maven team. Which is not.
But is the order relevant in the artifactId or in the public display
name? I think it's
Am 2014-10-11 um 21:03 schrieb Benson Margulies:
I am very tempted to reopen the trademark question here. It seems to
me that this whole business ignores the groupId component of the name,
which distinguishes pretty clearly, and I would argue is enough to
avoid trademark dillution.
Well said...
I am very tempted to reopen the trademark question here. It seems to
me that this whole business ignores the groupId component of the name,
which distinguishes pretty clearly, and I would argue is enough to
avoid trademark dillution.
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Michael Osipov wrote:
> I'd l
I'd like to sum up the consensus we have hopefully reached already:
1. Make maven-plugin-plugin fail the build if the plugin being build
does not adhere to our convention (next minor version).
2. Warn a user when a build is performed with a plugin which violates
the naming convention, just like
