incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason van Zyl <jvan...@maven.org>
Subject Re: [Possible Incubation] Apache Repo
Date Sat, 08 Nov 2003 18:13:59 GMT
On Sat, 2003-11-08 at 05:09, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:

Ok, I read what you said and we'll chalk it up to miscommunication and a
misunderstanding. I am admittedly obstinate and can be unflexible, I
never meant the level of animosity to grow to the point that it did. I
sincerely apologize.

> What I did see was massive duplication of efforts in Apache and 
> elsewhere that I did not want to accept.
> 
> There is Gump, why POM?
> There is Ant, why Jelly?
> There is Centipede cents, why Maven plugins?
> 
> Simply that was the decision of the Maven developers, ok.

We definitely made those decisions and I think you have to look at what
the outcome was. Gump had been running for a long time before Maven even
became visible and Maven notions of a project descriptor are far more
widely used now than Gump's because I think it is seen as being more
clear. Users decided of their own accord. Anyone can search through all
the Apache archives and see that I made no huge lobbying effort to shove
Maven down anyone's throat. I even asked that Jon Steven's cease and
desist when hailed Maven as the grand replacement on Jakarta.

My opinions are still pretty much the same as when Maven started. That
the Gump descriptor was convoluted and I decided to completely disregard
it as a failed effort; that the Ant task are an amazing repository of
utility code but that Ant itself suffers from some severe architectural
deficiencies and that Jelly provides a better harness for the utility
code (I also believe Jelly's current implementation is sorely lacking,
but that's another issue all together); and finally that something based
on Gump and Ant would not be a long lasting solution. That's what I felt
and I pushed those notions in the Maven community. There too I didn't
have to do any lobbying to reach a consensus. Everyone agreed so we
continued down that path.

We are at the point where publishers want books written about Maven, it
is being used all over the place of user's own volition and the mailing
list traffic is growing at an enormous rate. I think users have
validated our original ideas and our choices by the fact it is growing
in popularity and use on a daily basis.

> But please leave me the possibility to have a different opinion on this 
> way of doing things.

It is often that I have noted to people that Maven is not the solution
for them. Lot's of folks on the Maven list have been met with my
responses to find a more suitable tool for their task. I have in fact
pointed them at Ant and Centipede.

> http://www.jroller.com/page/nicolaken/20030228
> 
> >>I don't see why would an indipendent and cross-project repository effort 
> >>and library have to be under Maven.
> > 
> > It certainly doesn't but you also can't ignore what Maven has done for
> > the notion of a repository.
> 
> Of course.
> 
> > In any case I think that if you wish to incubate Ruper then I am +1.
> 
> Thanks. I hope that the results will be so good that Maven will be 
> compelled to use it. I also hope that Maven developers will participate 
> in the project.
> 
> Jason, thanks for your fair and clear comments. I hope that this can put 
>   an end to our incomprehensions about what happened.

I think we have, which is definitely a good thing.

-- 
jvz.

Jason van Zyl
jason@zenplex.com
http://tambora.zenplex.org

In short, man creates for himself a new religion of a rational
and technical order to justify his work and to be justified in it.
  
  -- Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message