maven-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <>
Subject Re: [RANT] This Maven thing is killing us....
Date Wed, 05 Jul 2006 00:54:32 GMT

On Jul 4, 2006, at 5:16 PM, Carlos Sanchez wrote:

> On 7/5/06, Stephen Duncan <> wrote:
>> On 7/4/06, Jason van Zyl <> wrote:
>> >
>> > On 4 Jul 06, at 2:37 PM 4 Jul 06, Steve Loughran wrote:
>> >
>> > The metadata will never be perfect but right now I still
>> > think it's far from being ideal because we have no real active
>> > process of improving it on a large scale. Carlos puts in a _lot_ of
>> > time trying to correct things and absorb changes submitted for
>> > improvement but as mentioned in the previous message it's a  
>> matter of
>> > education and automated tools running to point people in the right
>> > direction.
>> Well, but it seems (recently?) that a policy has been put into place
>> that POMs already in the repository should not be corrected or
>> improved, in order to preserve repeatability for builds depending on
>> the existing version, and that corrections should be done by making
>> new releases.  It's hard enough to get projects to care about
>> providing Maven POMs, but to ask for a new release seems a bit much.
> There's always the possibiblity of adding a new version ourselves with
> a build number, like 1.0-1 where only the pom changes. Only as an
> exception when a project is dead or don't release often

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 jencks

>> It also may seem ideal to have projects take care of their own POMs,
>> but it makes it frustrating for users to provide information on  
>> fixes.
>>  I know, personally, I've cut down on contributing to central
>> repository improvement.  I've taken to simply installing new jars to
>> my internal repository, because asking individual projects to do it
>> gives slow-to-no returns.  I put top-level exclusions into
>> dependencyManagement rather than request changes to POMs, because
>> again, there seems no process for actually getting that to happen
>> that's not haphazard.  I'll try to work on doing better, but the
>> cost-reward ratio isn't helping.
> Well, if everybody does that then there's no community benefit and we
> all lose. When I need something not in ibiblio I put it there because
> it's not much harder than putting it in my local repo.
>> I think maybe some either feature or convention for handling version
>> changes to just POMs so they can be improved without another release
>> of the software would help.  Some clarification/policy statements on
>> when I should go straight to the project responsible for a jar vs.
>> filing in Maven evangelism for uploads & for POM improvements  
>> might be
>> helpful.  Certainly some of the 2.1 planned features (like being able
>> to rely on geronimo-transaction & have that take care of anything
>> relying in javax.transaction:jta...) could help.  I think some  
>> concept
>> work needs to go into optional dependencies, because it we can't
>> control when Spring decides they want to stop providing modularized
>> jars, and move to a single jar that will essentially have all  
>> optional
>> dependencies.  I'm not looking forward to getting my projects to work
>> with Spring 2.0.
> You can always have poms for different maven configurations against
> only one jar, see
>> Believe me, this is all coming from someone who's been trying.  I've
>> filed bug reports with Spring, and Lucene, other projects to get  
>> Maven
>> uploads.  I've volunteered to work on providing and maintaining a
>> Maven 2 build for an incubator project so that it will be easy to
>> provide Maven jars & poms when the time comes.
> You can see in 
> browse/SPR-1484
> that Spring got pressure from their users to provide POMs, it's by far
> the most popular issue. Any project that wants to succeed must listen
> to their users
>> Oh, another quality issue.  -source and -javadoc jars.  It really
>> slows down running eclipse:eclipse when half or more of my
>> dependencies don't have these jars.  And a lot don't.  All of
>> spring-1.2.7, for instance.
> You can download Spring, jar the stuff up and submit them for adding
> to ibiblio. I don't understand how can you complain when maven is the
> only project providing that feature.
>> My purpose isn't just to complain.  I just think that there's  
>> going to
>> have be more to it than "it'll get better over time" for the central
>> repository to improve, because, from the narrow view of the things I
>> use, it's getting a bit worse, not better right now.
> My view is that it's getting better, more jars, more poms, more
> javadocs, more sources, and more and more projects caring about the
> repository, being a must for them.
>> --
>> Stephen Duncan Jr
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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:

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

View raw message