Docker-maven-plugin: Rename docker-maven-plugin

[rhuss]

... to moby-maven-pugin ?

Is this the right step now ?

[nicolaferraro]

I thought they renamed the upstream project but continue to release the products as "docker x" (even community bits from the moby repo, as "docker CE"). If so, "moby" will be a name known by a tiny audience. I would not change the name if not "forced" to do so.

[rhuss]

Some times ago Docker forbid people to have github projects starting with "docker". I've asked via mail whether 'docker-maven-plugin' as name is correct, but never got an answer. So I still think we are on somewhat slippery ice. Another idea was to rename it to container-maven-plugin (but then we should support something in addition to Docker, too ;-)

Lets wait a bit until the dust settles ....

[kevtainer]

there is no shortage of knee-jerk reactions at this point. moby is for engineers who are creating entire container ecosystems. docker and the current toolchain is a part of moby. it would make more sense to spin off and make a linuxkit-maven-plugin or swarmkit-maven-plugin if the need arised.

tl;dr docker is still docker.

[rhuss]

I referring to this issue from last year (tweet) where Docker considers GitHub repo names starting with "docker" not as fair use of the brand. As Docker's current move happens probably also to strengthen the brand "Docker" as a product, I'm still afraid that we are in muddy waters here.

I sent the following letter last September to [email protected], but never get any response:

Hi,

as maintainer of the community project
https://github.com/fabric8io/docker-maven-plugin I have a question
regarding this naming (also because there is some discussion around this
in twittersphere currently). To be honest, I considered the name
"docker-maven-plugin" to be fair and nominative use, which is also used
by around ~50 other projects on GitHub, too
(https://github.com/search?q=docker-maven-plugin)

However, it seems that the naming is against your naming rules for
GitHub repositories.

Could you please clarify whether the name "docker-maven-plugin" can be
used nevertheless ?

And if not, whether the naming rule also applies to the name of the
Maven plugin itself as stored in Maven central
(http://search.maven.org/#search%7Cga%7C1%7Cdocker-maven-plugin) ?

Thanks !

At that time we already thought to rename it to container-maven-plugin, but wanted to wait for a response first as this means a considerable amount of effort. fyi, the alternative maven-docker-plugin is not possible because of Maven rules (which allows only Maven provided plugins to start with maven-)

@kcrawley you are probably right, that moby-maven-plugin is not the proper choice, but it's far from a knee-jerk reaction as this is a sword of Damocles over this project.

[rhuss]

Just a quick poll, please vote thumbs up / down on the following alternatives:

[rhuss]

container-maven-plugin

[rhuss]

moby-maven-plugin

[rhuss]

docker-maven-plugin

(Leave it as it is and wait ....)

[rhuss]

Feel free to add you suggestions, too ...

[kevtainer]

fabric8-docker-plugin

[rhuss]

fabric8-docker-plugin

@kcrawley Luckily (or unfortunately ;-) ?) we already have a fabric8-maven-plugin which is an extension on d-m-p. So I'm afraid this name would confuse people quite a bit (and is not symmetric)

[kevtainer]

@rhuss i'm familiar with it. to be fair, that one should really be named fabric8-kubeshift-plugin :hurtrealbad:

[rhuss]

@kcrawley thanks for suggestion, like the name 'kubeshift' ;-)

Still would like to keep 'maven' somewhere in the name (as I don't know any Maven plugin which does not), so maybe 'kubeshift-maven-plugin' would be a better name, but then still 'kubeshift' sounds a bit like a two headed chimera which btw might be not so far off ;-) Maybe would it be even better to have seperate 'kubernetes-maven-plugin' and 'openshift-maven-plugin' but that's a different story and would be an even bigger move than renaming.