Recently I came across a company that is forking several open source Java projects. I saw they were making a mistake that I also made a few years ago and have since learned from.
In Maven's distributed repository architecture project artifacts, like JAR files, are uniquely identified by a coordinate system composed of a group identifier, an artifact identifier, a version number, optionally a classifier, and a packaging type. For instance, the most recent version of the Apache Commons Lang project has a Maven coordinate (i.e.groupId:artifactId:version:classifier:type) of commons-lang:commons-lang:2.5::jar.
A few years ago, if I wanted to make custom changes to this project I would get the source, make my changes and then deploy the result to our private Nexus repository under a new groupId such as com.jaxzin.oss:commons-lang:2.5::jar. That might seem reasonable. Then a year later or so I tried something different and changed the artifactId like this commons-lang:commons-lang-jaxzin:2.5::jar.
Unfortunately there is a serious problem with both of these approaches. Maven supports transitive dependencies which means, if you include a dependency you get its dependencies 'for free'. But what happens when you depend on com.jaxzin.oss:commons-lang and indirectly include commons-lang:commons-lang? With either approach, Maven has lost all knowledge that these two artifacts are actually related. And when I say 'related' I mean they include different versions of the same classes. When Maven loses this relationship, it can't perform version conflict resolution and will include both versions in the output. It will compile against both in the classpath. If you are building a WAR file, it will include both in the WEB-INF/lib directory. If you are assembling or shading an "uber"jar, it will include the classes from both in your giant jar with all its dependencies. And unfortunately, the one that 'wins' is nearly indeterministic.
So what's the solution? How do you properly fork an open-source project privately?
The trick is to change the version, and leave the groupId and artifactId alone. That way, Maven still can detect the relationship and can perform version conflict resolution. So to complete the example I would fork Commons Lang 2.5 to a new coordinate commons-lang:commons-lang:2.5-jaxzin-1::jar.
Now I do have one further suggestion, but it's of questionable practice and I'm not sure how well it works. You might consider forking version 2.5 to version 2.6-jaxzin. This way, if Maven attempt to resolve version conflicts, it will know that your fork is 'newer/better' than 2.5. Maven sees version with qualifiers as being older than the unqualified version. I think the assumption is that if you are qualifying a version its a pre-release version like 1.0-alpha-1, 1.0-beta-1, or 1.0-rc-1. You can read more about how Maven version conflict resolution works and I know they have a major overhaul of this logic available in Maven 3.0 with the Mercury project.
But, in practice, when I've run into version conflicts like this I will add an exclusion clause where I depend on an artifact that is including the conflict transitively.