[hibernate-dev] Hibernate Commons project

[Guillaume Smet]

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 3:26 PM, Yoann Rodiere <yrodiere at redhat.com> wrote:

>
> On 30 January 2017 at 13:58, Guillaume Smet <guillaume.smet at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Note that the current version of hibernate-commons-annotations is
>> org.hibernate.common (without the s at the end, not org.hibernate as Yoann
>> stated it).
>>
> You're right. Wouldn't the simplest solution be to use the same groupId
> (without a "s") in our new repo?
>

I'm not so sure it's a good idea to share the groupId while it being a
completely different project.

I'm starting to think that maybe the good groupId for these common internal
projects could be org.hibernate.*internal*. We plan them to be purely
internal artifacts and we might as well state it.

What do you all think about it?


> Moving hibernate-commons-annotations is not such a good idea IMHO:
>> - it's licensed under the LGPL so it would force us to use this license
>> (or
>> relicense it or having different licenses for the submodules but they are
>> all bad ideas)
>>
>
> It sure seems complicated. But relicensing from LGPL to ASL2 may not be
> such a big deal, since LGPL seems stricter than ASL2.
> Couldn't we simply dual-license the whole repository under ASL2/LGPL? That
> way, previous users wouldn't need to be aware of the change, and new users
> could choose to comply with whichever suits them best.
>

Yeah, dual licensing might be the better solution. But I think it would be
OK with ASL2. Anyway, let's wait for Emmanuel to decide on this subject.


> - we would release a new version of this module each time we want to
>> upgrade the theme and I don't think it would be readable for consumers of
>> this preexisting artifact.
>>
>> The latter point is what worries me about centralizing all the utils in
>> the
>> same repo with the same lifecycle.
>>
>
> We already got through this discussion, but let's sum it up:
>

Not exactly. I was specifically talking about hibernate-commons-annotations
as it's a different beast: it's already released and people might use it in
their projects. Thus I don't think it's a good idea to think of it as a
purely internal project.

IMHO, it makes a difference.

-- 
Guillaume