----- Original Message -----
> [...]
> > Looks like the right thing to do would be to swap out JSR 275 use with
> > that? I'll take a look if noone else has yet. I came across it while
> > looking into the packaging side of things, so keen to use the "right"
> > thing for the long term.
> >
>
> I agree.
>
(I'm on it)
> > Oh, reminds me - any thoughts on long term use of the org.custardsource
> > namespace? Would "io.pcp.parfait" make sense? I don't mind either way
> > [...]
>
> I also agree and think we should switch to a more consistent PCP based
> namespace. That will of course BreakEverything, so best done as a managed
> major version increment with a migration guide (if possible, providing an
> example migration bash script that automatically replaces Java import
> statements with the new namespace. Hey my Mum said I can always ask, they
> can say no! :-P )
Something like the attached script? Agree re a migration guide - the API is
gonna need to change for the JSR 275 -> 363 switch too, so all-at-once sounds
like a good plan.
> One other implication is to change the oss.sonatype.com link for Parfait for
> deployment out to the Java Maven repos, see things like this:
>
> https://issues.sonatype.org/browse/OSSRH-576
> <https://issues.sonatype.org/browse/OSSRH-576>
Ohhh... I'll probably need java guru help with that for pcp.io - I'll be
in touch closer to the time.
> I believe that a top level namespace mapping is needed perhaps for the
> deployment for this artefactId or groupId.
OK, so lets get the code massaged first, and then talk to the sonatype folk?
> RPM isn't going to help you here.
Ayup - since we have no rpms to start from, its not really helpful managing it
in RPM (at all) anyway I guess.
cheers.
--
Nathan
switcheroo
Description: application/shellscript
|