maven-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Carlos Sanchez" <>
Subject Re: [RANT] This Maven thing is killing us....
Date Wed, 05 Jul 2006 10:19:56 GMT
On 7/5/06, David Jencks <> wrote:
> On Jul 4, 2006, at 6:33 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
> > On 5/07/2006 10:54 AM, David Jencks wrote:
> >> I think the process is somewhat broken and that the maven team is
> >> being far too strict about changing broken poms that were in fact
> >> installed by the maven team, not supplied by the project.
> >> (xmlbeans is the case in point for me).  I also think that
> >> traceability of where poms came from and under what auspices they
> >> are added to either the repository svn tree or ibiblio is sorely
> >> lacking.  (again xmlbeans being my sore spot).  We are in the
> >> situation where a pom appeared from an unknown source, is wrong,
> >> did not come from the project, and can't be updated.  Much as I
> >> like maven it's hard for me to see how this is going to lead to
> >> success.
> >
> > David,
> >
> > I thought we'd agreed to fix that up? I can't find the issue on it
> > other than which is not the
> > one I recall (that one is about stax which is a whole other problem
> > beyond the scope of Maven too).
> that's the one.  The xmlbeans pom does not have the required stax-api
> dependency listed in it.  As that issue notes, Carlos declined to
> change the existing pom.  IIUC Carlos said I needed to get xmlbeans
> to produce the pom, which I am currently working on, see http://

The problem is that people want a stable repo, you just have to check
this thread. If I could go back in time I wouldn't do the
autogeneration of poms.

Another issue I've already seen several times is patches to fix poms
that at the end where not the *right* fix. For instance people saying
that dependency A is missing, so it's added. Then somebody else uses
it differently and then dependency B is missing. I don't want that to
happen again.

> The xmlbeans team have agreed in principle to cooperate but have not
> in fact yet reviewed my first draft for things like correct urls.  I
> originally planned to produce a complete set of poms for their 3 jars
> and 3 releases but am not sure how to test one of them.    To me it
> seems like its turned into an enormous amount of work to fix a really
> obvious problem.  One of the most frustrating things for me is that
> there is no way to find out where the existing wrong poms came from.

Brett has a good suggestion about adding traceability to uploaded
poms. But I can tell you that if the pom only has group, artifact and
version is coming from the early times of the repo autogenerated it
from a missing pom in the m1 repo.
Things from Apache, Codehaus, Objectweb,... come synced from their repos.

> Second most frustrating was that the MEV instructions turned out to
> be 100% inaccurate, so following them to the letter was a complete
> waste of time.

Sorry about that, now they are changed, not sure if they have been deployed yet.

> There was another problem with the maven xmlbeans plugin that Kris
> Bravo fixed immediately.
> thanks
> david jencks
> >
> > - Brett
> >
> > --
> > Brett Porter <>
> > Apache Maven -
> > Better Builds with Maven -
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > For additional commands, e-mail:
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

I could give you my word as a Spaniard.
No good. I've known too many Spaniards.
                             -- The Princess Bride

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

View raw message