geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Blevins <david.blev...@visi.com>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Geronimo PMC Managed, project-specific Maven Repository
Date Mon, 04 Apr 2005 23:29:53 GMT
Before this spins out of control, let's give everyone a chance to clarify.  I must admit I
didn't quite clearly understand the "...and they do that...." part of the email.  I took the
overall point to mean something like, if we need to release in-step then we should consider
cleaning up the coupling between the projects, which wouldn't be an unreasonable statement.

Geir, is that what you meant?

-David

On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 04:12:06PM -0700, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> On Apr 4, 2005, at 3:53 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> 
> >On Apr 4, 2005, at 5:48 PM, David Blevins wrote:
> >
> >>Even further, I don't think pressuring projects into giving us an 
> >>officially named version of our SNAPSHOT when they aren't ready to 
> >>release is a solution either.  Then we are just turning a blind eye 
> >>and saying, "not my problem."
> >
> >Well, if we are working closely with a project (like OpenEJB, 
> >ActiveMQ, HOWL, etc) and they do that it's time to reconsider working 
> >so closely with them, IMO.  I'm not saying that projects should 
> >release for us on a whim because they are independent and have other 
> >parts of their community to cater to, and I know things will settle 
> >down, but there are lots of users that wouldn't take things seriously 
> >until the pedigree of the OSS we're using is clear, and it wouldn't be 
> >if we were issuing our own snapshots of external dependencies.
> 
> Geir, I think your comments are way too hard of a line to take.  Let's 
> put this back in context.  David originally wrote the following:
> 
> --------------------------------------
> You do realize we are talking about two different things here.  No one 
> in their right mind would propose SNAPSHOT dependencies are a good idea 
> for releases of any kind.  Not only do I strongly agree, I think we 
> shouldn't switch something back to SNAPSHOT after a release.
> 
> Even further, I don't think pressuring projects into giving us an 
> officially named version of our SNAPSHOT when they aren't ready to 
> release is a solution either.  Then we are just turning a blind eye and 
> saying, "not my problem."
> --------------------------------------
> 
> The reality is our timeline are not likely to align with most projects. 
>  There will be tough times when a project is focused on another task 
> and not ready to cut a release (much like geronimo is now focused on 
> certification).  In times like that, how do you propose we "reconsider 
> working so closely with them".  Would we fork a project because they 
> wanted to wait a 3 weeks for an official release?  Would we replace the 
> project?  Most of the projects you listed are simply irreplaceable.
> 
> I think you need to be more flexible.  This is especially true when 
> dealing with a volunteer organization.
> 
> -dain

Mime
View raw message