Login | Register
My pages Projects Community openCollabNet

Reply to message

* = Required fields
* Subject
* Body
Send reply to
Author (directly in email)
Please type the letters in the image above.

Original message

Author Micheal J <open.zone@virgin.net>
Full name Micheal J <open.zone@virgin.net>
Date 2000-08-01 04:17:46 PDT
Message > > It is my understanding that having package names reflect the
> reverse order
> > of the URL of the developing organization was designed to
> prevent package
> > name collisions. If the .tigris is striped from the package
> names can't an
> > organization which owns the name gef.org publish a org.gef package that
> > conflicts with your proposed 'org.gef' package name?
> >
> I agree with you. But GEF as well as Argo are not developed by tigris.org.
> This is only the place where the developing community places the
> code. Don't
> get me wrong. I appreciate the work of tigris and the people at
> Collab.net.
> But they don't own GEF, they simply host the project. Therefore I
> don't think,
> that their name should be reflected by the package names. If someday an
> organization called gef.org will exist, hopefully it will be the
> owner of GEF
> and coordinate the further developing. To put it the other way round. if
> someday there will be an organization owning and controlling GEF (e.g.
> something like Apache), its name should be part of the package names.
> Jason: I think this kind of discussion will raise up for the package
> restructuring of argo as well. Maybe we should find a "generic"
> solution that
> fits for both, GEF and Argo.

Perhaps the solution is to acquire gef.org and argo[uml].org for the
project?. I would have thought Jason or an Apache-style organisation
(perhaps called "Argonauts") would be the natural custodian of the project.