[sanselan] Next steps

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
23 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[sanselan] Next steps

Phil Steitz
We have voted to accept sanselan as a commons component [1].  Welcome!

We now need to settle the administrative questions raised in [2]:

2. Most commons components have a "functional" name instead of a "fun"
name. Would Sanselan need to be renamed, e.g. Commons Image, or would it
be ok to have the sub-project called Sanselan, or Commons Sanselan?

My preference would be to adopt a functional name.  We used to have this
documented as a policy, but that seems to vanished from the web pages,
so it is possible that we made a conscious decision that I just
personally forgot about to eliminate this policy.  If others - most
importantly, the Sanselan community - feel strongly about not changing
the name, I am OK with it.  It makes it easier for people to find their
way through our components, however, if their names are descriptive.  
Personally, I feel the same way about TLPs, but that is a separate topic.

3. Would any changes be required from the existing packaging of
Sanselan? For example, packages are named org.apache.sanselan. Would
these need to be renamed to org.apache.commons.sanselan (or less fun
name as above)?

My preference would be o.a.c.x, where x is the new functional name.  
Repackaging provides an opportunity to revise the name.

I have separately kicked off a vote on private@ (per our custom) on
commitership.  Once that closes, we will need volunteers to help with
the svn move and component setup.

Thanks!

Phil

[1] http://markmail.org/message/cwngahpm2aieop6c
[2] http://markmail.org/message/4oum556w4wqubnvm


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [sanselan] Next steps

sebb-2-2
On 28/04/2009, Phil Steitz <[hidden email]> wrote:
> We have voted to accept sanselan as a commons component [1].  Welcome!
>
>  We now need to settle the administrative questions raised in [2]:
>
>  2. Most commons components have a "functional" name instead of a "fun"
> name. Would Sanselan need to be renamed, e.g. Commons Image, or would it be
> ok to have the sub-project called Sanselan, or Commons Sanselan?
>
>  My preference would be to adopt a functional name.

+1 for functional name

-0.9 for Sanselan

BTW in French the name could mean "without enthusiasm" if one ignores
the missing space and acute accent ;-)

As it happens, "Image" means much the same in French as in English.

> We used to have this
> documented as a policy, but that seems to vanished from the web pages, so it
> is possible that we made a conscious decision that I just personally forgot
> about to eliminate this policy.  If others - most importantly, the Sanselan
> community - feel strongly about not changing the name, I am OK with it.  It
> makes it easier for people to find their way through our components,
> however, if their names are descriptive.  Personally, I feel the same way
> about TLPs, but that is a separate topic.
>
>  3. Would any changes be required from the existing packaging of Sanselan?
> For example, packages are named org.apache.sanselan. Would these need to be
> renamed to org.apache.commons.sanselan (or less fun name as above)?

+1 for o.a.c.x

>  My preference would be o.a.c.x, where x is the new functional name.
> Repackaging provides an opportunity to revise the name.
>
>  I have separately kicked off a vote on private@ (per our custom) on
> commitership.  Once that closes, we will need volunteers to help with the
> svn move and component setup.
>
>  Thanks!
>
>  Phil
>
>  [1] http://markmail.org/message/cwngahpm2aieop6c
>  [2] http://markmail.org/message/4oum556w4wqubnvm
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>  To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>  For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [sanselan] Next steps

jochen-2
In reply to this post by Phil Steitz
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 3:45 AM, Phil Steitz <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 2. Most commons components have a "functional" name instead of a "fun" name.
> Would Sanselan need to be renamed, e.g. Commons Image, or would it be ok to
> have the sub-project called Sanselan, or Commons Sanselan?

What for? It would bring only confusion and additional work. Let's spare that.


> 3. Would any changes be required from the existing packaging of Sanselan?
> For example, packages are named org.apache.sanselan. Would these need to be
> renamed to org.apache.commons.sanselan (or less fun name as above)?

This is the case for most of commons components. No sense in treating
Sanselan otherwise.


Jochen


--
Don't trust a government that doesn't trust you.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: [sanselan] Next steps

Gary Gregory
In reply to this post by Phil Steitz
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phil Steitz [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 6:46 PM
> To: Commons Developers List
> Subject: [sanselan] Next steps
>
> We have voted to accept sanselan as a commons component [1].  Welcome!
>
> We now need to settle the administrative questions raised in [2]:
>
> 2. Most commons components have a "functional" name instead of a "fun"
> name. Would Sanselan need to be renamed, e.g. Commons Image, or would it
> be ok to have the sub-project called Sanselan, or Commons Sanselan?

+1 for a functional name, Image or other.

> My preference would be to adopt a functional name.  We used to have this
> documented as a policy, but that seems to vanished from the web pages,
> so it is possible that we made a conscious decision that I just
> personally forgot about to eliminate this policy.  If others - most
> importantly, the Sanselan community - feel strongly about not changing
> the name, I am OK with it.  It makes it easier for people to find their
> way through our components, however, if their names are descriptive.
> Personally, I feel the same way about TLPs, but that is a separate topic.
>
> 3. Would any changes be required from the existing packaging of
> Sanselan? For example, packages are named org.apache.sanselan. Would
> these need to be renamed to org.apache.commons.sanselan (or less fun
> name as above)?
>
> My preference would be o.a.c.x, where x is the new functional name.
> Repackaging provides an opportunity to revise the name.

+1, yep, just like all other commons packages.

>
> I have separately kicked off a vote on private@ (per our custom) on
> commitership.  Once that closes, we will need volunteers to help with
> the svn move and component setup.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Phil
>
> [1] http://markmail.org/message/cwngahpm2aieop6c
> [2] http://markmail.org/message/4oum556w4wqubnvm
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [sanselan] Next steps

Carsten Ziegeler
I agree that the package name should be changed to o.a.c.x but I'm not
so happy with changing the name. Sanselan is well-known in the java
image world, so I would rather keep it.

We already have Betwixt and Jelly, so we have two prominent libs not
using a functional name.

Carsten
--
Carsten Ziegeler
[hidden email]

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: [sanselan] Next steps

Jörg Schaible
In reply to this post by Gary Gregory
Gary Gregory wrote at Dienstag, 28. April 2009 08:10:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Phil Steitz [mailto:[hidden email]]
>> Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 6:46 PM
>> To: Commons Developers List
>> Subject: [sanselan] Next steps
>>
>> We have voted to accept sanselan as a commons component [1].  Welcome!

Yes, welcome. I have myself some image (resp. imageio) related code sitting
here and I'll have a close look whether it makes sense to add this also.

>> We now need to settle the administrative questions raised in [2]:
>>
>> 2. Most commons components have a "functional" name instead of a "fun"
>> name. Would Sanselan need to be renamed, e.g. Commons Image, or would it
>> be ok to have the sub-project called Sanselan, or Commons Sanselan?
>
> +1 for a functional name, Image or other.

+1

Actually, if I have some need of common functionality not part of the JDK,
my first look is at the Apache commons components. Looking for image
related code I'd probably never spotted senselan though, simply because I
expect that the component name matches the covered topic.

>> My preference would be to adopt a functional name.  We used to have this
>> documented as a policy, but that seems to vanished from the web pages,
>> so it is possible that we made a conscious decision that I just
>> personally forgot about to eliminate this policy.  If others - most
>> importantly, the Sanselan community - feel strongly about not changing
>> the name, I am OK with it.  It makes it easier for people to find their
>> way through our components, however, if their names are descriptive.
>> Personally, I feel the same way about TLPs, but that is a separate topic.
>>
>> 3. Would any changes be required from the existing packaging of
>> Sanselan? For example, packages are named org.apache.sanselan. Would
>> these need to be renamed to org.apache.commons.sanselan (or less fun
>> name as above)?
>>
>> My preference would be o.a.c.x, where x is the new functional name.
>> Repackaging provides an opportunity to revise the name.
>
> +1, yep, just like all other commons packages.

+1

[snip]

- Jörg


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [sanselan] Next steps

Luc Maisonobe
In reply to this post by Phil Steitz

----- "Phil Steitz" <[hidden email]> a écrit :

> We have voted to accept sanselan as a commons component [1].
> Welcome!
>
> We now need to settle the administrative questions raised in [2]:
>
> 2. Most commons components have a "functional" name instead of a "fun"
>
> name. Would Sanselan need to be renamed, e.g. Commons Image, or would
> it
> be ok to have the sub-project called Sanselan, or Commons Sanselan?
>
> My preference would be to adopt a functional name.  We used to have
> this
> documented as a policy, but that seems to vanished from the web pages,
>
> so it is possible that we made a conscious decision that I just
> personally forgot about to eliminate this policy.  If others - most
> importantly, the Sanselan community - feel strongly about not changing
>
> the name, I am OK with it.  It makes it easier for people to find
> their
> way through our components, however, if their names are descriptive.

-1 to changing names. Names are part of the social link that build communities, changing them would appear to me as if we were stealing the project from both its promoters and users. All the work done on having a brand known would be lost.

>
> Personally, I feel the same way about TLPs, but that is a separate
> topic.
>
> 3. Would any changes be required from the existing packaging of
> Sanselan? For example, packages are named org.apache.sanselan. Would
> these need to be renamed to org.apache.commons.sanselan (or less fun
> name as above)?
>
> My preference would be o.a.c.x, where x is the new functional name.  
> Repackaging provides an opportunity to revise the name.

+1 to repackaging, this is only technical and makes sense. Given my preference from previous item, this would mean org.apache.commons.sanselan

Luc

>
> I have separately kicked off a vote on private@ (per our custom) on
> commitership.  Once that closes, we will need volunteers to help with
>
> the svn move and component setup.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Phil
>
> [1] http://markmail.org/message/cwngahpm2aieop6c
> [2] http://markmail.org/message/4oum556w4wqubnvm
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [sanselan] Next steps

Torsten Curdt
In reply to this post by Jörg Schaible
There are enough projects for which a "fun name" works just fine.
Usually they are bigger though. *shrug* No strong opinion on this one.

I do have a strong opinion on the package name though. Definitely
should live in our package space. After all it's just a right click on
"refactor".

cheers
--
Torsten

On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 08:59, Jörg Schaible <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Gary Gregory wrote at Dienstag, 28. April 2009 08:10:
>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Phil Steitz [mailto:[hidden email]]
>>> Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 6:46 PM
>>> To: Commons Developers List
>>> Subject: [sanselan] Next steps
>>>
>>> We have voted to accept sanselan as a commons component [1].  Welcome!
>
> Yes, welcome. I have myself some image (resp. imageio) related code sitting
> here and I'll have a close look whether it makes sense to add this also.
>
>>> We now need to settle the administrative questions raised in [2]:
>>>
>>> 2. Most commons components have a "functional" name instead of a "fun"
>>> name. Would Sanselan need to be renamed, e.g. Commons Image, or would it
>>> be ok to have the sub-project called Sanselan, or Commons Sanselan?
>>
>> +1 for a functional name, Image or other.
>
> +1
>
> Actually, if I have some need of common functionality not part of the JDK,
> my first look is at the Apache commons components. Looking for image
> related code I'd probably never spotted senselan though, simply because I
> expect that the component name matches the covered topic.
>
>>> My preference would be to adopt a functional name.  We used to have this
>>> documented as a policy, but that seems to vanished from the web pages,
>>> so it is possible that we made a conscious decision that I just
>>> personally forgot about to eliminate this policy.  If others - most
>>> importantly, the Sanselan community - feel strongly about not changing
>>> the name, I am OK with it.  It makes it easier for people to find their
>>> way through our components, however, if their names are descriptive.
>>> Personally, I feel the same way about TLPs, but that is a separate topic.
>>>
>>> 3. Would any changes be required from the existing packaging of
>>> Sanselan? For example, packages are named org.apache.sanselan. Would
>>> these need to be renamed to org.apache.commons.sanselan (or less fun
>>> name as above)?
>>>
>>> My preference would be o.a.c.x, where x is the new functional name.
>>> Repackaging provides an opportunity to revise the name.
>>
>> +1, yep, just like all other commons packages.
>
> +1
>
> [snip]
>
> - Jörg
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [sanselan] Next steps

sebb-2-2
In reply to this post by Luc Maisonobe
On 28/04/2009, [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>  ----- "Phil Steitz" <[hidden email]> a écrit :
>
>
>  > We have voted to accept sanselan as a commons component [1].
>  > Welcome!
>  >
>
> > We now need to settle the administrative questions raised in [2]:
>  >
>  > 2. Most commons components have a "functional" name instead of a "fun"
>  >
>  > name. Would Sanselan need to be renamed, e.g. Commons Image, or would
>  > it
>  > be ok to have the sub-project called Sanselan, or Commons Sanselan?
>  >
>
> > My preference would be to adopt a functional name.  We used to have
>  > this
>  > documented as a policy, but that seems to vanished from the web pages,
>  >
>  > so it is possible that we made a conscious decision that I just
>  > personally forgot about to eliminate this policy.  If others - most
>  > importantly, the Sanselan community - feel strongly about not changing
>  >
>  > the name, I am OK with it.  It makes it easier for people to find
>  > their
>  > way through our components, however, if their names are descriptive.
>
>
> -1 to changing names. Names are part of the social link that build communities, changing them would appear to me as if we were stealing the project from both its promoters and users. All the work done on having a brand known would be lost.
>

How about

Commons Image (Sanselan)

or

Commons Sanselan Imaging

I'm not keen on "Commons Sanselan".

>  >
>  > Personally, I feel the same way about TLPs, but that is a separate
>  > topic.
>  >
>  > 3. Would any changes be required from the existing packaging of
>  > Sanselan? For example, packages are named org.apache.sanselan. Would
>  > these need to be renamed to org.apache.commons.sanselan (or less fun
>  > name as above)?
>  >
>  > My preference would be o.a.c.x, where x is the new functional name.
>  > Repackaging provides an opportunity to revise the name.
>
>
> +1 to repackaging, this is only technical and makes sense. Given my preference from previous item, this would mean org.apache.commons.sanselan
>
>  Luc
>
>
>  >
>  > I have separately kicked off a vote on private@ (per our custom) on
>  > commitership.  Once that closes, we will need volunteers to help with
>  >
>  > the svn move and component setup.
>  >
>  > Thanks!
>  >
>  > Phil
>  >
>  > [1] http://markmail.org/message/cwngahpm2aieop6c
>  > [2] http://markmail.org/message/4oum556w4wqubnvm
>  >
>  >
>  > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>  > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>  To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>  For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [sanselan] Next steps

Luc Maisonobe

----- "sebb" <[hidden email]> a écrit :

> On 28/04/2009, [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >  ----- "Phil Steitz" <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> >
> >
> >  > We have voted to accept sanselan as a commons component [1].
> >  > Welcome!
> >  >
> >
> > > We now need to settle the administrative questions raised in [2]:
> >  >
> >  > 2. Most commons components have a "functional" name instead of a
> "fun"
> >  >
> >  > name. Would Sanselan need to be renamed, e.g. Commons Image, or
> would
> >  > it
> >  > be ok to have the sub-project called Sanselan, or Commons
> Sanselan?
> >  >
> >
> > > My preference would be to adopt a functional name.  We used to
> have
> >  > this
> >  > documented as a policy, but that seems to vanished from the web
> pages,
> >  >
> >  > so it is possible that we made a conscious decision that I just
> >  > personally forgot about to eliminate this policy.  If others -
> most
> >  > importantly, the Sanselan community - feel strongly about not
> changing
> >  >
> >  > the name, I am OK with it.  It makes it easier for people to
> find
> >  > their
> >  > way through our components, however, if their names are
> descriptive.
> >
> >
> > -1 to changing names. Names are part of the social link that build
> communities, changing them would appear to me as if we were stealing
> the project from both its promoters and users. All the work done on
> having a brand known would be lost.
> >
>
> How about
>
> Commons Image (Sanselan)

That would be fine.

Luc

>
> or
>
> Commons Sanselan Imaging
>
> I'm not keen on "Commons Sanselan".
>
> >  >
> >  > Personally, I feel the same way about TLPs, but that is a
> separate
> >  > topic.
> >  >
> >  > 3. Would any changes be required from the existing packaging of
> >  > Sanselan? For example, packages are named org.apache.sanselan.
> Would
> >  > these need to be renamed to org.apache.commons.sanselan (or less
> fun
> >  > name as above)?
> >  >
> >  > My preference would be o.a.c.x, where x is the new functional
> name.
> >  > Repackaging provides an opportunity to revise the name.
> >
> >
> > +1 to repackaging, this is only technical and makes sense. Given my
> preference from previous item, this would mean
> org.apache.commons.sanselan
> >
> >  Luc
> >
> >
> >  >
> >  > I have separately kicked off a vote on private@ (per our custom)
> on
> >  > commitership.  Once that closes, we will need volunteers to help
> with
> >  >
> >  > the svn move and component setup.
> >  >
> >  > Thanks!
> >  >
> >  > Phil
> >  >
> >  > [1] http://markmail.org/message/cwngahpm2aieop6c
> >  > [2] http://markmail.org/message/4oum556w4wqubnvm
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >  > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >  To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >  For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [sanselan] Next steps

Charles Matthew Chen
+1 To changing package names.  It will be an easy update for Sanselan
and the project's users.

+1 to keeping the name Sanselan.  The name is of no particular
significance, but users have known the project by that name for a few
years.

Charles Matthew Chen




On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 8:43 AM,  <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> ----- "sebb" <[hidden email]> a écrit :
>
>> On 28/04/2009, [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >
>> >  ----- "Phil Steitz" <[hidden email]> a écrit :
>> >
>> >
>> >  > We have voted to accept sanselan as a commons component [1].
>> >  > Welcome!
>> >  >
>> >
>> > > We now need to settle the administrative questions raised in [2]:
>> >  >
>> >  > 2. Most commons components have a "functional" name instead of a
>> "fun"
>> >  >
>> >  > name. Would Sanselan need to be renamed, e.g. Commons Image, or
>> would
>> >  > it
>> >  > be ok to have the sub-project called Sanselan, or Commons
>> Sanselan?
>> >  >
>> >
>> > > My preference would be to adopt a functional name.  We used to
>> have
>> >  > this
>> >  > documented as a policy, but that seems to vanished from the web
>> pages,
>> >  >
>> >  > so it is possible that we made a conscious decision that I just
>> >  > personally forgot about to eliminate this policy.  If others -
>> most
>> >  > importantly, the Sanselan community - feel strongly about not
>> changing
>> >  >
>> >  > the name, I am OK with it.  It makes it easier for people to
>> find
>> >  > their
>> >  > way through our components, however, if their names are
>> descriptive.
>> >
>> >
>> > -1 to changing names. Names are part of the social link that build
>> communities, changing them would appear to me as if we were stealing
>> the project from both its promoters and users. All the work done on
>> having a brand known would be lost.
>> >
>>
>> How about
>>
>> Commons Image (Sanselan)
>
> That would be fine.
>
> Luc
>
>>
>> or
>>
>> Commons Sanselan Imaging
>>
>> I'm not keen on "Commons Sanselan".
>>
>> >  >
>> >  > Personally, I feel the same way about TLPs, but that is a
>> separate
>> >  > topic.
>> >  >
>> >  > 3. Would any changes be required from the existing packaging of
>> >  > Sanselan? For example, packages are named org.apache.sanselan.
>> Would
>> >  > these need to be renamed to org.apache.commons.sanselan (or less
>> fun
>> >  > name as above)?
>> >  >
>> >  > My preference would be o.a.c.x, where x is the new functional
>> name.
>> >  > Repackaging provides an opportunity to revise the name.
>> >
>> >
>> > +1 to repackaging, this is only technical and makes sense. Given my
>> preference from previous item, this would mean
>> org.apache.commons.sanselan
>> >
>> >  Luc
>> >
>> >
>> >  >
>> >  > I have separately kicked off a vote on private@ (per our custom)
>> on
>> >  > commitership.  Once that closes, we will need volunteers to help
>> with
>> >  >
>> >  > the svn move and component setup.
>> >  >
>> >  > Thanks!
>> >  >
>> >  > Phil
>> >  >
>> >  > [1] http://markmail.org/message/cwngahpm2aieop6c
>> >  > [2] http://markmail.org/message/4oum556w4wqubnvm
>> >  >
>> >  >
>> >  >
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> >  > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> >
>> >
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >  To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> >  For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> >
>> >
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [sanselan] Next steps

Carsten Ziegeler
In reply to this post by Luc Maisonobe
[hidden email] wrote:
> -1 to changing names. Names are part of the social link that build communities, changing them would appear to me as if we were stealing the project from both its promoters and users. All the work done on having a brand known would be lost.
>
Yupp, I totally agree.Now, as there are already non functional names in
Sanselan, keeping the name Sanselan is not an exception.
So I think it should either be Apache Commons Sanselan or as someone
suggested Apache Commons Sanselan Imaging.

We should definitly keep the brand Sanselan.

The package name o.a.c.sanselan is fine.

Regards
Carsten
--
Carsten Ziegeler
[hidden email]

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: [sanselan] Next steps

Gary Gregory
In reply to this post by sebb-2-2
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sebb [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 5:08 AM
> To: Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: [sanselan] Next steps
>
> On 28/04/2009, [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >  ----- "Phil Steitz" <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> >
> >
> >  > We have voted to accept sanselan as a commons component [1].
> >  > Welcome!
> >  >
> >
> > > We now need to settle the administrative questions raised in [2]:
> >  >
> >  > 2. Most commons components have a "functional" name instead of a
> "fun"
> >  >
> >  > name. Would Sanselan need to be renamed, e.g. Commons Image, or would
> >  > it
> >  > be ok to have the sub-project called Sanselan, or Commons Sanselan?
> >  >
> >
> > > My preference would be to adopt a functional name.  We used to have
> >  > this
> >  > documented as a policy, but that seems to vanished from the web
> pages,
> >  >
> >  > so it is possible that we made a conscious decision that I just
> >  > personally forgot about to eliminate this policy.  If others - most
> >  > importantly, the Sanselan community - feel strongly about not
> changing
> >  >
> >  > the name, I am OK with it.  It makes it easier for people to find
> >  > their
> >  > way through our components, however, if their names are descriptive.
> >
> >
> > -1 to changing names. Names are part of the social link that build
> communities, changing them would appear to me as if we were stealing the
> project from both its promoters and users. All the work done on having a
> brand known would be lost.
> >
>
> How about
>
> Commons Image (Sanselan)

I like:

Commons Image
Commons Image (Sanselan)
Commons Image "Sanselan"
Commons Image - Sanselan

The idea is that the name is Commons Image + something Sanselan.


>
> or
>
> Commons Sanselan Imaging
>
> I'm not keen on "Commons Sanselan".
>
> >  >
> >  > Personally, I feel the same way about TLPs, but that is a separate
> >  > topic.
> >  >
> >  > 3. Would any changes be required from the existing packaging of
> >  > Sanselan? For example, packages are named org.apache.sanselan. Would
> >  > these need to be renamed to org.apache.commons.sanselan (or less fun
> >  > name as above)?
> >  >
> >  > My preference would be o.a.c.x, where x is the new functional name.
> >  > Repackaging provides an opportunity to revise the name.
> >
> >
> > +1 to repackaging, this is only technical and makes sense. Given my
> preference from previous item, this would mean org.apache.commons.sanselan
> >
> >  Luc
> >
> >
> >  >
> >  > I have separately kicked off a vote on private@ (per our custom) on
> >  > commitership.  Once that closes, we will need volunteers to help with
> >  >
> >  > the svn move and component setup.
> >  >
> >  > Thanks!
> >  >
> >  > Phil
> >  >
> >  > [1] http://markmail.org/message/cwngahpm2aieop6c
> >  > [2] http://markmail.org/message/4oum556w4wqubnvm
> >  >
> >  >
> >  > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >  > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >
> >  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >  To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >  For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [sanselan] Next steps

papajdo

On Apr 28, 2009, at 2:22 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:

> I like:
>
> Commons Image

Not as good as any of the following:
>
> Commons Image (Sanselan)
> Commons Image "Sanselan"
> Commons Image - Sanselan
>
> The idea is that the name is Commons Image + something Sanselan.
>
I'm fine with any of the above that contain Sanselan in the name.

But I think the package should be org.apache.commons.sanselan. I don't  
see the need to add "image" to the package names.

Craig

Craig L Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:[hidden email]
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!


smime.p7s (3K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [sanselan] Next steps

Niall Pemberton
In reply to this post by Charles Matthew Chen
I'm against forcing a name change on an existing project without any
other argument other than "functional names". So +1 to what Charles
says.

Niall

On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 9:37 PM, Charles Matthew Chen
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> +1 To changing package names.  It will be an easy update for Sanselan
> and the project's users.
>
> +1 to keeping the name Sanselan.  The name is of no particular
> significance, but users have known the project by that name for a few
> years.
>
> Charles Matthew Chen
>
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 8:43 AM,  <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> ----- "sebb" <[hidden email]> a écrit :
>>
>>> On 28/04/2009, [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >  ----- "Phil Steitz" <[hidden email]> a écrit :
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >  > We have voted to accept sanselan as a commons component [1].
>>> >  > Welcome!
>>> >  >
>>> >
>>> > > We now need to settle the administrative questions raised in [2]:
>>> >  >
>>> >  > 2. Most commons components have a "functional" name instead of a
>>> "fun"
>>> >  >
>>> >  > name. Would Sanselan need to be renamed, e.g. Commons Image, or
>>> would
>>> >  > it
>>> >  > be ok to have the sub-project called Sanselan, or Commons
>>> Sanselan?
>>> >  >
>>> >
>>> > > My preference would be to adopt a functional name.  We used to
>>> have
>>> >  > this
>>> >  > documented as a policy, but that seems to vanished from the web
>>> pages,
>>> >  >
>>> >  > so it is possible that we made a conscious decision that I just
>>> >  > personally forgot about to eliminate this policy.  If others -
>>> most
>>> >  > importantly, the Sanselan community - feel strongly about not
>>> changing
>>> >  >
>>> >  > the name, I am OK with it.  It makes it easier for people to
>>> find
>>> >  > their
>>> >  > way through our components, however, if their names are
>>> descriptive.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > -1 to changing names. Names are part of the social link that build
>>> communities, changing them would appear to me as if we were stealing
>>> the project from both its promoters and users. All the work done on
>>> having a brand known would be lost.
>>> >
>>>
>>> How about
>>>
>>> Commons Image (Sanselan)
>>
>> That would be fine.
>>
>> Luc
>>
>>>
>>> or
>>>
>>> Commons Sanselan Imaging
>>>
>>> I'm not keen on "Commons Sanselan".
>>>
>>> >  >
>>> >  > Personally, I feel the same way about TLPs, but that is a
>>> separate
>>> >  > topic.
>>> >  >
>>> >  > 3. Would any changes be required from the existing packaging of
>>> >  > Sanselan? For example, packages are named org.apache.sanselan.
>>> Would
>>> >  > these need to be renamed to org.apache.commons.sanselan (or less
>>> fun
>>> >  > name as above)?
>>> >  >
>>> >  > My preference would be o.a.c.x, where x is the new functional
>>> name.
>>> >  > Repackaging provides an opportunity to revise the name.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > +1 to repackaging, this is only technical and makes sense. Given my
>>> preference from previous item, this would mean
>>> org.apache.commons.sanselan
>>> >
>>> >  Luc
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >  >
>>> >  > I have separately kicked off a vote on private@ (per our custom)
>>> on
>>> >  > commitership.  Once that closes, we will need volunteers to help
>>> with
>>> >  >
>>> >  > the svn move and component setup.
>>> >  >
>>> >  > Thanks!
>>> >  >
>>> >  > Phil
>>> >  >
>>> >  > [1] http://markmail.org/message/cwngahpm2aieop6c
>>> >  > [2] http://markmail.org/message/4oum556w4wqubnvm
>>> >  >
>>> >  >
>>> >  >
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> >
>>> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> >  > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> >
>>> >
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> >  To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> >  For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [sanselan] Next steps

Siegfried Goeschl
In reply to this post by Charles Matthew Chen
Hi folks,

changing package names : +1
changing project name : no opinion about - "Commons Sanselan" or
"Commons Image (Sanselan)" is fine for my

Cheers,

Siegfried Goeschl


Charles Matthew Chen wrote:

> +1 To changing package names.  It will be an easy update for Sanselan
> and the project's users.
>
> +1 to keeping the name Sanselan.  The name is of no particular
> significance, but users have known the project by that name for a few
> years.
>
> Charles Matthew Chen
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 8:43 AM,  <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  
>> ----- "sebb" <[hidden email]> a écrit :
>>
>>    
>>> On 28/04/2009, [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>      
>>>>  ----- "Phil Steitz" <[hidden email]> a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  > We have voted to accept sanselan as a commons component [1].
>>>>  > Welcome!
>>>>  >
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>> We now need to settle the administrative questions raised in [2]:
>>>>>          
>>>>  >
>>>>  > 2. Most commons components have a "functional" name instead of a
>>>>        
>>> "fun"
>>>      
>>>>  >
>>>>  > name. Would Sanselan need to be renamed, e.g. Commons Image, or
>>>>        
>>> would
>>>      
>>>>  > it
>>>>  > be ok to have the sub-project called Sanselan, or Commons
>>>>        
>>> Sanselan?
>>>      
>>>>  >
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>> My preference would be to adopt a functional name.  We used to
>>>>>          
>>> have
>>>      
>>>>  > this
>>>>  > documented as a policy, but that seems to vanished from the web
>>>>        
>>> pages,
>>>      
>>>>  >
>>>>  > so it is possible that we made a conscious decision that I just
>>>>  > personally forgot about to eliminate this policy.  If others -
>>>>        
>>> most
>>>      
>>>>  > importantly, the Sanselan community - feel strongly about not
>>>>        
>>> changing
>>>      
>>>>  >
>>>>  > the name, I am OK with it.  It makes it easier for people to
>>>>        
>>> find
>>>      
>>>>  > their
>>>>  > way through our components, however, if their names are
>>>>        
>>> descriptive.
>>>      
>>>> -1 to changing names. Names are part of the social link that build
>>>>        
>>> communities, changing them would appear to me as if we were stealing
>>> the project from both its promoters and users. All the work done on
>>> having a brand known would be lost.
>>>      
>>> How about
>>>
>>> Commons Image (Sanselan)
>>>      
>> That would be fine.
>>
>> Luc
>>
>>    
>>> or
>>>
>>> Commons Sanselan Imaging
>>>
>>> I'm not keen on "Commons Sanselan".
>>>
>>>      
>>>>  >
>>>>  > Personally, I feel the same way about TLPs, but that is a
>>>>        
>>> separate
>>>      
>>>>  > topic.
>>>>  >
>>>>  > 3. Would any changes be required from the existing packaging of
>>>>  > Sanselan? For example, packages are named org.apache.sanselan.
>>>>        
>>> Would
>>>      
>>>>  > these need to be renamed to org.apache.commons.sanselan (or less
>>>>        
>>> fun
>>>      
>>>>  > name as above)?
>>>>  >
>>>>  > My preference would be o.a.c.x, where x is the new functional
>>>>        
>>> name.
>>>      
>>>>  > Repackaging provides an opportunity to revise the name.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> +1 to repackaging, this is only technical and makes sense. Given my
>>>>        
>>> preference from previous item, this would mean
>>> org.apache.commons.sanselan
>>>      
>>>>  Luc
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  >
>>>>  > I have separately kicked off a vote on private@ (per our custom)
>>>>        
>>> on
>>>      
>>>>  > commitership.  Once that closes, we will need volunteers to help
>>>>        
>>> with
>>>      
>>>>  >
>>>>  > the svn move and component setup.
>>>>  >
>>>>  > Thanks!
>>>>  >
>>>>  > Phil
>>>>  >
>>>>  > [1] http://markmail.org/message/cwngahpm2aieop6c
>>>>  > [2] http://markmail.org/message/4oum556w4wqubnvm
>>>>  >
>>>>  >
>>>>  >
>>>>        
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>      
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>          
>>>>  > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>      
>>>>  To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>  For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>      
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>
>>    
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
>
>  

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [sanselan] Next steps

Henri Yandell
In reply to this post by Carsten Ziegeler
Both Betwixt and Jelly are on the quiet side of dormant however.

My concern with Sanselan is that it gets us into the trademark game. I
like that "Apache Commons Logging" is all about the Apache trademark.

Still - not enough to cause pain and strife to the users who'll
already be dealing with maven repository changes and package name
changing :)

[good time to get in any backwards incompatible changes btw ;) ]

Hen

On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 11:44 PM, Carsten Ziegeler <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I agree that the package name should be changed to o.a.c.x but I'm not
> so happy with changing the name. Sanselan is well-known in the java
> image world, so I would rather keep it.
>
> We already have Betwixt and Jelly, so we have two prominent libs not
> using a functional name.
>
> Carsten
> --
> Carsten Ziegeler
> [hidden email]
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [sanselan] Next steps

jochen-2
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 7:27 AM, Henri Yandell <[hidden email]> wrote:

> My concern with Sanselan is that it gets us into the trademark game. I
> like that "Apache Commons Logging" is all about the Apache trademark.

That concern is valid, but it should be sufficient to change the name
Sanselan whenever factual trademark issues are found.

Jochen

--
Don't trust a government that doesn't trust you.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [sanselan] Next steps

Carsten Ziegeler
In reply to this post by Henri Yandell
So where are we now with moving/graduating Sanselan?

Regards
Carsten
--
Carsten Ziegeler
[hidden email]

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [sanselan] Next steps

papajdo
Here's my take on graduating Sanselan from incubator to commons.

1. Sanselan has been accepted by Commons.
2. The active committers have been granted write access to the  
repository.

Remaining issues:

1. Deciding on the package name for sanselan at commons.
2. Deciding on the brand name for sanselan.
3. Voting sanselan out of incubation.
4. Migrating the code from incubator/sanselan to commons/proper/
sanselan and repackaging everything.

Regarding issue 1, the clear preference by the primary contributors to  
the project is to use org.apache.commons.sanselan.

Regarding issue 2, the software will continue to be known as sanselan.  
So I don't think it much matters whether it's Commons Sanselan or  
Commons Image - Sanselan. Anyone landing on the commons web page  
looking for image processing will find it. And anyone using any  
popular web search engine to look for "java image apache" will find  
it. So this item is primarily talking about what it's called on its  
own individual web page in the commons web site.

Regarding 3, I think we're ready to vote sanselan out of incubation.  
I'll start the vote once we're agreed here.

Regarding 4, once 3 is done the project committers can easily perform  
this task.

What say you all?

Craig

On May 18, 2009, at 8:39 AM, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:

> So where are we now with moving/graduating Sanselan?
>
> Regards
> Carsten
> --
> Carsten Ziegeler
> [hidden email]
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
Craig L Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:[hidden email]
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!


smime.p7s (3K) Download Attachment
12