commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Craig R. McClanahan" <>
Subject Re: unmavenising Commons projects
Date Mon, 24 Jun 2002 01:32:57 GMT

On Sun, 23 Jun 2002, Jon Scott Stevens wrote:

> Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 15:57:44 -0700
> From: Jon Scott Stevens <>
> Reply-To: Jakarta Commons Developers List <>
> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List <>
> Subject: Re: unmavenising Commons projects
> on 6/23/02 3:25 PM, "Craig R. McClanahan" <> wrote:
> > The usability difference between Makefiles and build.xml files is so
> > obvious that no marketing was required.  The functionality difference
> > between do-it-yourself build.xml files and Maven is clear, but requires
> > you to buy in to a set of conventions that you didn't have any voice in
> > developing, and don't necessarily address everyone's needs.
> Ant didn't solve everyone's needs at first either.
> So, join the community Craig. It is open source.
> > I share Costin's annoyance with Mavenites who think anyone who doesn't
> > use it is stupid, and don't plan to convert any of the commons packages
> > I'm involved in until after a 1.0 release, and until after agreement from
> > the other committers on those packages.
> People were using Ant before it was released as 1.0. Including your company.
> =)

Same with Struts before 1.0.  But I bent over backwards not to make people
change their struts-config.xml files (or their classes, for that matter)
in the interim :-).

> > This whole process might get accelerated a lot if the Maven propoents
> > would ask around the other Jakarta projects for what *they* want a build
> > system to do, outside the community that is already familiar with it or
> > working on it.
> So, join the community Craig. It is open source.

Nah, building project management systems isn't my itch.  I want to build
things *I* am interested in, and use the interesting/useful things that
others enjoyed building if they help me.

I'd be OK with a commons-wide discussion and choice of a common
build/project management toolset, were that to actually occur.  Until
then, I'm content with the existing build.xml approach.  And it's not up
to me to defend the status quo, when I'm not the one trying to change it.

It's open source, but I'm still just a (potential) user, not a developer.
I don't plan to ever download the source code of Maven (or Ant, for that
matter); binary releases are just fine.  I've got more interesting (to me)
things to work on.

But I'd happily listen to a sales pitch :-).

> -jon


To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
For additional commands, e-mail: <>

View raw message