maven-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason van Zyl <>
Subject Re: The Hostile Takeover of Maven
Date Thu, 30 Apr 2009 16:05:04 GMT

On 30-Apr-09, at 8:37 AM, nicolas de loof wrote:

> Hi,(Hope my poor english will not create nonsense here)
> Thanks for your reply, whatever can be said against my contribution  
> to Maven
> core :p
> I fully agree I was not a usefull contributor to maven core. The main
> reasons are
> - lack of time : I'm not a self-employee man. I get not a cents fom  
> maven -
> maybe I'll with the incoming french book, but that lot's of efforts  
> for few
> money. I like maven and want it to be as good as possible.
> - hard to understand design. Sory to say that lack of typed  
> collections /
> javadoc on APIs don't help to understand internals, even for plugin
> developpers

Done in trunk, and Hervé has made the changes necessary in Modello for  
the generated code.

> - use of (maybe technologically excellent but) exotic and poorly  
> documented
> tools. This don't make things easy for a newbee developer to bring  
> good code
> in SVN.

Such is life but this barely impacts the code in core itself. Using  
Guice, for example, is not going to help that problem. Though using  
Guice would help when problems occurred. There's no avoiding the hard  
work of digging in and spending hundreds of man hours to understand  
the code base. I think this will be far simpler to understand in 3.x  
and that's my primary goal with the first release.

> I'd be pleased to contribute more to maven-core. To be honnest, I've
> allready so much to do on plugins - maybe the visible part of the  
> iceberg,
> but the one users request features

That's fine, comment where you have a right to comment.

> For more and better contributions I'd need a cleaner view on maven  
> short
> term roadmap. The maven 3.x plan is a very high level and I have not  
> spare
> enough time to try understand it. The 2.2 release seems more  
> accessible to
> me, and I plan to contribute more to this branch when I get time for  
> it.

Then contribute where you're comfortable but I a strongly disagree  
with John and Brett and I'm not going to make a grand master roadmap  
to have the vast majority of people do nothing. I have historical  
precent on my side. If someone wants to be creative and helpful. I'd  
be happy to chat with them and in 3 hours could probably record  
something someone can work with.

No one wants to do the shitty work and it's not contributing to  
features right now it's working on and fixing the integration tests so  
that someone can work on the core and get immediate feedback on  
problems. Completely working integration tests in Hudson running all  
the time is more important to me then a roadmap. I'm refactoring and I  
don't even know what future versions of Maven 3.x will look like I  
just know that the code base is too hard to work with.

> I really consider you make a technically great job on maven trunk,  
> and want
> Sonatype to stay a main supporter or opensource maven. I just don't  
> like the
> idea that people not working full time on maven have few chance to  
> get into
> the project.

If you want to help us with the integration tests and refactoring then  
that is the best way to enable others getting involved. Documentation  
of code that changes on a daily basis is useless. Tests which describe  
how the components work and the ITs where you see examples of behavior  
is what will make it easier for people to try and make changes knowing  
they haven't harmed the system.

> I'd like to see a real roadmap for maven 2.x and 3.x, not just few  
> pages on
> wiki. I'd like to know WHY we have replaced Foo with Bar not having to
> search the mailing list history (@see the proposal wikis used on  
> apache
> commons for sample). I'd like to ensure some major discution don't  
> occured
> on IRC when I'm sleeping ;)

I'm not going to go into a huge long discussion, if people don't like  
the direction then look at the code. At this point I'm telling you  
that there is not a lot of interesting work going on insofar as  
features. It's all refactoring and testing and it's full-time work. I  
am merging to popular frameworks and I'm picking the ones I like  
because I'm doing the work. If you don't like them write your own and  
put them forward. We're never going to use Spring, so the choices for  
IoC are XBR, Pico, and Guice and Guice is probably the best fit for  
community, number of users, and compatibility with Plexus. For  
transport who can do a better job then the Jetty people? Yes I just  
try and preempt these low level discussions because do you really  
care? If so say something.

You either help with all the crap work of integration testing, or wait  
until the feature discussions start. As I try to solidify the base it  
is hard to stop while I'm working full-time but the APIs are getting  
smaller, the code base is getting smaller and more ITs are passing and  
trunk is catching up to being compatible with 2.x.

If someone wants to chat and take the lead on writing the roadmap I  
would be happy to work with them.

> To make things shorter, I'd like to see Maven beeing documented on  
> what we
> want it to be and how we plan to do so. Nowaday I can't find anything
> concrete about this.

It's all where it's always been in the Wiki. You can ask the people  
who have made proposals so you have to do a lot of work as well if you  
want to understand what people have done. It's not my job to spend  
half my time telling you what I'm doing so we can discuss and have me  
do the work. If you want to get involved then ask questions. I'm happy  
to tell anyone anything they want to know. At this point after 5 years  
I know what the average person contributes and doesn't and that's just  
the way it is. If someone wants to change that here then they have to  
work with what's here and for the core on 3.x that's me.  If someone  
wants to make a completely detailed road map I'll point them to all  
the source material which is plenty, if scattered, and I will be happy  
to help someone put together a full plan. I want to code. I don't want  
to be a project manager. My modus operandi is to focus in on and  
select the couple people I know who can help in fundamental ways.  
Benjamin is one of them for me. I would rather spend all my time with  
him then write you a roadmap. If you want a roadmap I'll give you the  
material to write a roadmap.

> Maybe I'm not community-compliant with such expectation, maybe I can  
> get
> blamed to publicly claim my point of view, maybe I missunderstood  
> Sonatype
> implication on Maven development and maybe I'd better focus on  
> Archiva and
> forget maven-core. If you thing so, please remove my write  
> permission on
> maven-core SVN. I just would like to keep it on core-plugins if  
> possible, as
> those one require people if we expect to get more frequent releases.

That's not what was voted so that's not what's done here. It's one of  
the things I disagree with here but you take the parts you agree with,  
along with the parts you disagree with.

> Have a nice week-end,
> Cheers,
> Nicolas
> 2009/4/30 Jason van Zyl <>
>> On 24-Apr-09, at 12:21 AM, nicolas de loof wrote:
>> Hi guys,
>>> The previous translation sounds good, far better that any english  
>>> I could
>>> write by myself, as you may notice in following lines ;).
>>> First of all, this blog was not expected to be offensive. If you  
>>> consider
>>> it
>>> such please accept my apology, and feel free to attach any comment  
>>> to
>>> expose
>>> your point of view.
>> Really. An opening title of "The Hostile Takeover of Maven", siting  
>> myself
>> in the first sentence and then listing a set of things for which  
>> make little
>> sense to me so I'll address them as I believe by demonstration of  
>> your own
>> behavior you have done exactly as I have. These sensationalist  
>> titles and
>> blogs also immediately make me think of consultants abusing their
>> association with the Maven project for their own personal gain and
>> notoriety. It's certainly not helping the project. You can see the  
>> Ivy guy
>> reacting exactly as you planned I'm sure. And, of course, by my  
>> association
>> with the Maven project I am trying to further Sonatype. That is  
>> nothing I'm
>> ashamed and I don't believe it's bad for the project either. I  
>> think I have
>> just a tad more justification then you for doing so. This is above  
>> all else
>> a meritocracy. People often forget here that it is a consensus  
>> among those
>> who have done work, not just a consensus.
>> You, Nicolas, have 3 commits on the core of Maven, two of which we  
>> rolled
>> back because you engaged in zero discussion with the list and made  
>> changes
>> that were inappropriate. You actually made them to benefit Archiva  
>> which is
>> a project you work on it while not thinking of the greater impact.  
>> So the
>> exact thing what you are insinuating  is _exactly_ what you did. I  
>> know how
>> I work but I don't do one thing and say another. Especially about  
>> someone
>> else on a public blog about a project I'm barely involved in -- and  
>> I site
>> the single commit you have on the code base you're expounding  
>> about. You
>> came into this project by association with Archiva and not by way  
>> of your
>> sustained contribution to Maven. Which may explain the first  
>> comment in your
>> blog.
>> - The creation of Nexus is just my personal project working on it  
>> with a
>> bunch of my friends.
>> I don't feel that Archiva is something I wanted to be involved  
>> with. I
>> preferred to take the oldest known codebase of a Maven repository  
>> manager
>> (maven proxy I don't consider a manager) and support that effort.  
>> There were
>> also people in Archiva that I frankly didn't want to work with.  
>> These are
>> choices that we are all free to make and I really don't think that  
>> the
>> existence of Nexus has harmed anyone in the Maven community. We  
>> have very
>> aggressive schedules, we are very focused and we are very vocal. I  
>> see none
>> of those things as a detriment to Maven users.
>> - The development of Plexus
>> Plexus is not a Maven project, it's not even an Apache project. But  
>> if you
>> actually paid attention to the mailing lists of the code base you  
>> would see
>> code is rapidly being culled and replaced in the hopes of being  
>> able to swap
>> in Guice. You can get involved in Plexus just like you would any  
>> external
>> project. Do you complain to the Spring developers when they change  
>> the
>> internal dependency injection strategy?
>> - The overhaul of the transport
>> Have you even looked at the code to see how it works? It's not on by
>> default, and as I said to Brett a couple days ago and on the  
>> mailing list a
>> couple months ago that there are no new features in 3.x. I don't  
>> think you
>> understand. The only two people who really merit a decision in this  
>> process
>> are really Brett, Brian and Mark because they have each made very
>> significant effort with the code related to that part of Maven and  
>> it's an
>> incredible amount of work. Oleg has also sent many emails and there  
>> are lots
>> of documents in the wiki. So there is amble place to make comments  
>> but this
>> is not something you can just dabble in and yes it's hard to keep  
>> up when
>> there are people that are working on it full time. If you're  
>> interested ask,
>> or as Brett as for a summary (politely I might add) I will do that.
>> My blog is only for personnal opinions and uses a
>>> caricatural style to get reader post comments. If I hurted you I  
>>> can post
>>> an
>>> eratum with my apologies, this was not expected to be read at first
>>> degree.
>>> For this reason I choosed this title in relation with current  
>>> finantial
>>> activities around SUN & Java
>> All I can say is not very appropriate. I'll keep the rest of the  
>> comments
>> to myself and trust me I'm biting my tongue.
>>> During JUG sessions, many people ask me about maven roadmap, and  
>>> how the
>>> project development is planed. Most of them are not used with  
>>> professional
>>> opensource, and ask me how a company like Sonatype can get money  
>>> from
>>> opensource.
>> Probably no different then a consultant trying to make money off open
>> source. Through involvement and experience you gain the trust of  
>> people who
>> want to use the projects you work on. It's not that complicated.  
>> You appear
>> to clearly mention that you're an "Apache Maven Committer" on your  
>> LinkedIn
>> page so I'm sure what you are trying to do is not all together  
>> different
>> then what Sonatype is trying to do.
>> What makes you assume we're making money off Maven? Sonatype's  
>> business
>> model does have some training and revenue components but we're  
>> primarily
>> product sales and we do almost no consulting unless it relates to our
>> products. So unlike consultants we have less reason to push in  
>> specific
>> changes that benefit one client. I think we are actually in a  
>> position where
>> we don't have to do questionable things. The massive changes I have  
>> in Maven
>> that were client specific I have never committed.
>> This blog article has been written in reply to such discutions. It  
>> tries
>>> to
>>> reflect how Sonatype guys work full-time on maven 3 and related  
>>> ecosystem
>>> to
>>> be "the maven company". As you may notice, I compare this business  
>>> model
>>> to
>>> Spring and JBoss way to opensource : open license, project open to
>>> contribution, but project lead "hosted" by a company.
>> Except that your comparison is completely and entirely wrong.  
>> Sonatype is
>> not trying to monetize Maven. We don't even remotely have the same  
>> business
>> model. All the work we do on Maven is a community service. Sure we  
>> want
>> recognition but we're not selling an enterprise version of Maven,  
>> we don't
>> have publicly available forked versions of Maven that we promote  
>> and I can
>> tell you our business model includes work on Maven that yields no  
>> direct
>> return except for good will. If the Maven project has crappy  
>> technical
>> underpinning it's not very useful for people. Yes, Sonatype's  
>> business is
>> predicated on the widespread use of Maven-based technologies. Our  
>> investment
>> is to increase the number of Maven users by increasing the quality  
>> of Maven
>> itself and have it be used more. But that does not just directly  
>> benefit us.
>> So how we make money is first making sure the ecosystem is healthy  
>> because
>> if it isn't and people think we're doing devious things to then our  
>> entire
>> model crumbles. Without a healthy Maven community we have no  
>> business. We
>> invest in Maven without the expectation of a direct return.
>> We've invested in remaking Archetype, a couple full-time employees  
>> working
>> on the 2.x codebase to make sure releases continue, work on  
>> evolving the
>> artifact system, the transport system, Brian spends a ton of time  
>> setting up
>> things like Nexus (and yes it's our product but yes it is useful to  
>> Maven
>> users nonetheless), the Maven book, m2eclipse + book, Nexus + book  
>> so I
>> think we're doing a lot for the community. We definitely hope people
>> recognize this and see because of this we understand the ecosystem  
>> of tools
>> very well and puts us in a position to make great products that fit  
>> well in
>> the ecosystem. I think Sonatype has done a pretty good job  
>> balancing our
>> community and commercial interests.
>>> As Daniel said, I really like Maven, I really like the maven 3  
>>> roadmap you
>>> described (the post was also a way to link to the video). I also  
>>> don't
>>> like
>>> the current dev process : "release early, release often" - it  
>>> tooks 6
>>> month
>>> between two minor maven 2.0 release, we hardly got a maven 2.1  
>>> build.
>> So what are you doing about it? Aside from complaining? Seriously?  
>> You
>> don't even ask for a summary of what you want, you just post a  
>> diatribe
>> which doesn't do the community any good.
>> I
>>> don't say people here are not activelly contributing : the dev  
>>> community
>>> is
>>> working hard and I myslef hardly find time to contribute  
>>> significantly. I
>>> just thing we miss a good roadmap plan. Maven 2.x just have one  
>>> from few
>>> time, maven 3 is still a "will be great, bu when" project.
>>> Please post any comment you feel usefull for users to understand  
>>> your idea
>>> of maven future.
>>> Thanks all
>>> Cheers,
>>> Nicolas
>>> 2009/4/24 Jason van Zyl <>
>>>> On 23-Apr-09, at 11:19 PM, Daniel Le Berre wrote:
>>>> Jason,
>>>>> The summary is perfectly correct.
>>>>> I would add that the author mentions too that your are friends,  
>>>>> and the
>>>>> way the text is written is not offensive.
>>>> Good thing you translated. From the title and the Google  
>>>> translated text
>>>> I
>>>> read it as offensive. We are not friends so I would guess an  
>>>> attempt at
>>>> sarcasm.
>>>> (The author clearly does not agree with current maven development
>>>> process,
>>>>> he would like it be more community driven,
>>>>> but it looks like Maven still has some values on his eyes).
>>>>>     Daniel
>>>>> Le 24 avr. 09 à 01:52, Jason van Zyl a écrit :
>>>>> Thanks if that seems like a reasonable translation I will respond.
>>>>>> On 23-Apr-09, at 4:00 PM, Christian Edward Gruber wrote:
>>>>>> My french isn't perfect, but the article basically...
>>>>>>> <summary>
>>>>>>> ...argues against you (Jason) personally having the habit of
>>>>>>> imposing
>>>>>>> dramatic changes by presenting them as a fait-acomplis.
>>>>>>> There's a bit of a bill of rights:  We have the right to choose
>>>>>>> archiva
>>>>>>> or nexus (which he labels as Jason & Friends' personal  
>>>>>>> project), the
>>>>>>> right
>>>>>>> to replace plexus with XBR?, the right not to have wagon  
>>>>>>> replaced by
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> jetty team without discussion (or something like that), and 

>>>>>>> something
>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>> you "offering" to integrate this person's GWT plugin and have
>>>>>>> hosted at
>>>>>>> sonatype  (with a sarcastic "what an honour" at the end).
>>>>>>> Essentially it's an argument that you and your buddies have 

>>>>>>> created a
>>>>>>> "putch" and taken over what should be an egalitarian, apache-

>>>>>>> itarian
>>>>>>> project.  But it's now your little pet project (you and your
>>>>>>> friends).
>>>>>>> There's a bit about Eugene's being excluded because he doesn't
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> same high-profile as the rest of the team, etc.
>>>>>>> He believes in the potential, even if M3 looks like  far-off
>>>>>>> promise,
>>>>>>> but he's got a problem with the attitude of the core group. 
>>>>>>> He thinks
>>>>>>> Maven's going the way of JBoss and Spring and becoming a  
>>>>>>> "closed"
>>>>>>> opensource
>>>>>>> project.  The whole thing's nearly entirely under the control
>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>> Sonatype people... how long until a "Maven Pro" comes out?
>>>>>>> If things continue this way, he's going to have to revisit Ant
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> Ivy.
>>>>>>> </summary>
>>>>>>> Fun fun fun.  My own 2c... I don't care if Sonatype, codehaus,
>>>>>>> or an
>>>>>>> anarchic comune develops it, as long as they're responsive to
>>>>>>> bright
>>>>>>> ideas
>>>>>>> from the community and keep it open source.  As far as I can
>>>>>>> tell,
>>>>>>> Jason,
>>>>>>> Brett, John, Emmanuel, and a host of others have done awesome
>>>>>>> things.
>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>> don't see Nexus as nefariously excluding Archiva, nor any other
>>>>>>> maven-launched projects like Continuum, etc.  I just see this
>>>>>>> all as
>>>>>>> churn
>>>>>>> in the community as different ideas are tried.    As long as
>>>>>>> we're not
>>>>>>> locked in, I have no problems with that.  I know no one asked
>>>>>>> opinion,
>>>>>>> but there it is.
>>>>>>> cheers
>>>>>>> Christian.
>>>>>>> Could someone who speaks French please translate this for me
>>>>>>> before I
>>>>>>>> respond:
>>>>>>>> I'm not a native French speaker so I won't speculate, but
>>>>>>>> someone
>>>>>>>> would translate I would like to respond.
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Jason
>>>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> Jason van Zyl
>>>>>>>> Founder,  Apache Maven
>>>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> What matters is not ideas, but the people who have them.
>>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>> can fix bad ideas, but good ideas can't save bad people.
>>>>>>>> -- Paul Graham
>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>>>>>>>> Christian Edward Gruber
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Jason
>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> Jason van Zyl
>>>>>> Founder,  Apache Maven
>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> A man enjoys his work when he understands the whole and when he
>>>>>> is responsible for the quality of the whole
>>>>>> -- Christopher Alexander, A Pattern Language
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Jason
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Jason van Zyl
>>>> Founder,  Apache Maven
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 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:
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>> Thanks,
>> Jason
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> Jason van Zyl
>> Founder,  Apache Maven
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> the course of true love never did run smooth ...
>> -- Shakespeare



Jason van Zyl
Founder,  Apache Maven

First, the taking in of scattered particulars under one Idea,
so that everyone understands what is being talked about ... Second,
the separation of the Idea into parts, by dividing it at the joints,
as nature directs, not breaking any limb in half as a bad carver might.

   -- Plato, Phaedrus (Notes on the Synthesis of Form by C. Alexander)

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

View raw message