maven-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason van Zyl <ja...@sonatype.com>
Subject Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x
Date Wed, 04 Aug 2010 16:57:31 GMT

On Aug 4, 2010, at 11:54 AM, John Casey wrote:

>>> 
>>> 
>>> Having a stable set of specifications define their interaction with Maven would
make plugin development and embedding MUCH better. In fact, I think establishing this practice
might be the single best contribution we can make to Maven in the near term.
>>> 
> 
> All due respect, but that dodges the question of separating and standardizing the API
from the implementation. It also dodges the discussion about who sets the design of the repository
format and the API spec used to access it.
> 

To me that's sounds like a bunch of busy work without much value. It works, and it's going
to evolve by having people use it. The ultimate API will never be arrived at without lots
of integrators. That's how everything evolves.

> You're asking the Maven community to give up one of its greatest creations - the repository
format that has become a de facto standard - and become completely dependent on a project
whose future may be uncertain. It's easy to talk about companies as these fixtures in the
market, but the fact is we're talking about giving complete control over the Maven repository
API / format to a start-up.

I can't make you, or anyone else, do anything you don't want to do. Vote against it, implement
your own library, I'm not putting a gun to your head. I've done what I feel is best, I've
laid out what I think is best. You can disagree and take action accordingly.

> Start-ups are not known for their stability. Then, the company in control _may_ decide
(unilaterally) to move the whole shebang to Eclipse. There's absolutely no role for Maven
developers in this model, unless they go out and re-establish their merit on a new project.
> 

First, the code is ASL so if we rolled over tomorrow then take it. That's really not a problem.
Second, yes we created it so if we want to take it to Eclipse we can do that. People who do
the work get to make choices like that. Eclipse is solid place to do OSS work.

I'm tired of the endless debates about infrastructure, release process, using git, and I honestly
think Aether not being here is the best thing for getting others involved. 

> I'm not talking about the merit to contribute implementation details - though the ASF
concept of non-expiring merit argues strongly against losing access to that. What I'm talking
about is the right to contribute to the design of the repository format, API, and SPI (now
that I notice that's separate from the API). The language we use to share artifacts and metadata
should not be under the sole control of a private entity.

That honestly has nothing to do with where the code is. If we shut everyone out, we'd just
be shooting ourselves in the face and ruin any reputation we have of being meaningful contributors
to the Maven ecosystem. That doesn't do Sonatype any good. The argument that the only place
that can be done is simply not true.

> 
> Sure, there haven't been too many contributors to Maven 3. But how much of that has to
do with the velocity of work done and paid for by Sonatype,

It has a great deal to do with that. No one can keep up with full-time people but that doesn't
mean contributions should fall off to zero which is what's pretty much happened. Kristian
and Olivier being the exceptions.

> the dramatic and repeated shift in direction by those paid contributions (mercury for
example),

That was not a dramatic shift at all. We attempted to make an artifact resolution API and
the first attempt failed. No shift, a second more successful attempt.

> the need to chase code from SVN to GitHub, to still other GitHub repositories, and the
lack of discussion of the design of any of it?

It was not developed here, you do not have to accept it. I posit we would have been in endless
debate, no one would have contributed and we'd be in the same boat. My conjecture possibly,
but no different then your view which is also conjecture. The fact is right now we have a
working library and a way forward. Anyone here who feels I'm limited their choice can blame
themselves for not participating previously. Yes, I felt it would be more expedient to just
do it because this project needs to get on the rails again and I believe this is one of the
critical steps. Aether was implemented in a very short period of time. There's code there,
it works and now people can provide feedback. I honestly feel that works better. Yes I told
some people about it and not others and that was purely a judgement I made based on what people
have been contributing lately. That's why I didn't develop here because that mode of operation
is looked dimly upon here so I didn't do it here. And I want the velocity to continue, and
that just is not going to happen here based on my cumulative experience of over 10 years here.
I wanted to try something different and this is the result. You may not like it, you don't
have to agree, but you can't make me do what you feel is right.

> 
> It makes me uneasy to see how much this has become a skunkworks type of project, where
much of the development takes place behind closed doors and then gets dumped on the Maven
community.

You're entitled to your point of view. I'm interested at this point in the efficacy of execution
and the survival of the project. Not whether everyone has the warm fuzzies. Apart from the
Maven 1.x to Maven 2.x I've tried not to fuck users and doing so now wouldn't serve my commercial
or non-commercial efforts.

> 
> Maven contributors established the foundational concepts (and code, from what I can tell)
for Aether; Aether is a refactoring of that essential design and format. If you expect Maven
to use Aether, then the Maven community deserves some say in the future of the format and
API. That's my opinion.
> 

Just because the code base is not here does not stop you from participating. I think that's
just something you're going to have to reconcile yourself to. I believe the code needs a chance
to live outside these walls. And Aether is a very different design, sure it borrows things
from all over the place including here but it's definitely not a refactoring.

There isn't just the Apache Way and nothing else. As I've stated before Maven 3.0 is an effort
at backward compatibility with a way forward. We have not gone and secretly and radically
changed Maven and dropped Maven 4 in your laps. We made a library, yes an important one, but
it's a library nonetheless. I've said that all new features developed in the core and that's
not going to change. And guess what? There are no new features and we've basically be doing
the shit work of writing tests for 2 years that no one has helped with. We made Aether and
made it compatible, turfed Plexus to be more sensitive to users being confronted with my one-off
IoC and made it work with all existing code. I don't think anyone understands how much work
that was. The project would never move forward and it would be in a "good enough" state which
would leave it to be trampled by the competition. I'm just not going to let that happen. Some
work like what we've done is just never going to happen here, and it's definitely not going
to happen without millions of dollars of concerted effort. Which is where Sonatype is at this
point. I love that I've been fortunate enough to provide the work that's been done. It was
the exact same thing with Maven 2.x. If I hadn't start Mergere do you think Maven 2.x would
exist? I honestly doubt it. I try to balance what I think is necessary, and what I can reasonably
do at Apache and when what I think needs to be done falls outside of those parameters I opt
out instead of trying to force my opinions on everyone here. 

There are things I believe work best here, like when we start discussion outward facing features
for Maven 3.1. I don't think that can happen any place but here with a lot of discussion as
painful as I think that's going to be this is the right place to do that. For the bits that
are really, really hard require dedicated people,  talking on the phone 5 times a day and
pretty much every other violation of what would be considered the Apache Way. Every commercial
company involved here probably does lots of things like we do but they don't attempt to contribute
it back. I don't want a disparity in my working life where the OSS stuff I work on is good
enough and then I have to build around it to make something great on the commercial side.
I want Maven to be great and this is how I approach it.

I'm doing what I think is best for Maven users. If you disagree I'm not going to fault you,
and I encourage you to do what you think is right. I wouldn't ask anything less of anyone
involved here.

> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
> 

Thanks,

Jason

----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder,  Apache Maven
http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
---------------------------------------------------------

happiness is like a butterfly: the more you chase it, the more it will
elude you, but if you turn your attention to other things, it will come
and sit softly on your shoulder ...

 -- Thoreau 




Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message