Re: svn commit: r687158 - in /lucene/solr/trunk: client/java/solrj/ contrib/dataimporthandler/ lib/ src/maven/

[Shalin Shekhar Mangar <sh...@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 2:44 AM, <gs...@apache.org> wrote:

> Author: gsingers
> Date: Tue Aug 19 14:14:45 2008
> New Revision: 687158
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=687158&view=rev
> Log:
> Updated POM templates to use o.a.solr instead of o.a.lucene.solr per Maven
> recommendations
>
>
Grant -- I had initally changed to o.a.solr but reverted to o.a.lucene.solr
because Maven central repo rules say that the groupId must be the domain
which the project owns.

Quoting from their site -- "There are a lot of poorly defined package names
so you *must provide proof that you control the domain* that matches the
groupId. Provide proof means that the project is hosted at that domain or
it's owned by a member, in that case you must give the link to the registrar
database (whois) where the owner is listed and the page in the project web
where the owner is associated with the project. eg. If you use a com.sun.xyz
package name we expect that the project is hosted at http://xyz.sun.com."

http://maven.apache.org/guides/mini/guide-central-repository-upload.html

We don't have http://solr.lucene.apache.org -- not sure if we can use
o.a.solr in this case.

-- 
Regards,
Shalin Shekhar Mangar.

Re: svn commit: r687158 - in /lucene/solr/trunk: client/java/solrj/ contrib/dataimporthandler/ lib/ src/maven/

[Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>]

Hmmm, seems they conflict in their recommendations:  http://maven.apache.org/pom.html#Maven_Coordinates 
  says:
	"Note that the dot-notated groupId does not have to correspond to the  
package structure that the project contains. It is, however, a good  
practice to follow."

I think we are safe, despite the warning.  Good catch, though, I  
hadn't read that.  I think it is pretty clear who o.a.s belongs to and  
we can provide proof that we (i.e. the ASF) control the domain.  If  
anything, we could ask infra to setup solr.apache.org to just point to  
the current Solr site.

Besides, keeping it as o.a.l.s means it is going to be buried under  
the Lucene directories, and I would rather not do that.  It would mean  
we are imposing into Lucene Java's space a bit and potentially  
confusing people there who are used to looking for Lucene artifacts  
there.

That's my two cents, anyway.  I'd suggest we keep it as o.a.s to match  
Solr's package structure and to distinguish us in the repo from Lucene  
Java.

-Grant



On Aug 19, 2008, at 5:26 PM, Shalin Shekhar Mangar wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 2:44 AM, <gs...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Author: gsingers
>> Date: Tue Aug 19 14:14:45 2008
>> New Revision: 687158
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=687158&view=rev
>> Log:
>> Updated POM templates to use o.a.solr instead of o.a.lucene.solr  
>> per Maven
>> recommendations
>>
>>
> Grant -- I had initally changed to o.a.solr but reverted to  
> o.a.lucene.solr
> because Maven central repo rules say that the groupId must be the  
> domain
> which the project owns.
>
> Quoting from their site -- "There are a lot of poorly defined  
> package names
> so you *must provide proof that you control the domain* that matches  
> the
> groupId. Provide proof means that the project is hosted at that  
> domain or
> it's owned by a member, in that case you must give the link to the  
> registrar
> database (whois) where the owner is listed and the page in the  
> project web
> where the owner is associated with the project. eg. If you use a  
> com.sun.xyz
> package name we expect that the project is hosted at http://xyz.sun.com 
> ."
>
> http://maven.apache.org/guides/mini/guide-central-repository-upload.html
>
> We don't have http://solr.lucene.apache.org -- not sure if we can use
> o.a.solr in this case.
>
> -- 
> Regards,
> Shalin Shekhar Mangar.