Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-repository-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 60280 invoked from network); 8 Nov 2003 00:57:58 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (208.185.179.12) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 8 Nov 2003 00:57:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 97712 invoked by uid 500); 8 Nov 2003 00:57:43 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-repository-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 97666 invoked by uid 500); 8 Nov 2003 00:57:42 -0000 Mailing-List: contact repository-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Reply-To: repository@apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list repository@apache.org Received: (qmail 97652 invoked from network); 8 Nov 2003 00:57:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hogshead.codehaus.org) (66.216.68.111) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 8 Nov 2003 00:57:42 -0000 Received: from [192.168.1.103] (CPE00045a0b555b-CM023080004191.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [24.102.210.93]) by hogshead.codehaus.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hA80wQU17515 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2003 18:58:26 -0600 Subject: Re: Scope/Phasing From: Jason van Zyl Reply-To: jvanzyl@maven.org To: repository@apache.org In-Reply-To: <3FAC1AF3.7060805@apache.org> References: <052301c3a542$af801fe0$8f8b1f43@tsws1> <3FABCCFA.8030004@apache.org> <1068225434.18114.83.camel@localhost.localdomain> <3FAC02D2.4070708@apache.org> <1068239309.18114.187.camel@localhost.localdomain> <3FAC1AF3.7060805@apache.org> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Message-Id: <1068253059.18114.212.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-5) Date: 07 Nov 2003 19:57:39 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Fri, 2003-11-07 at 17:21, Stephen McConnell wrote: > Jason van Zyl wrote: > > >On Fri, 2003-11-07 at 15:38, Stephen McConnell wrote: I just snipped the whole thing because I think that discussion is heading in the wrong direction and we could go on ad nauseum vis-a-vis containers and MDA. I think that Nick's idea for a simple set of requirements would be a good start and I think they are simple. As I said I will take a stab at a proposal this weekend and it will be very short and simple not much different than what has been discussed. I hope that others do the same so that we can compare. Maven's POM is irrelavent; Component deployment and an applications use of a repository are irrelavent; Searching is irrevlant. This with respect to the task this group has been charged with. All these things are above and beyond what is required here which is essentially easy access to versioned artifacts. It's really not that much more than that. Sophisticated systems that are reliable are built upon simplicity not complexity Someone should be able to look at one page and in five mintues understand everything that the repository should be. I will follow Nick's lead and draft a response to the request for goals and requirements. It's not that complicated and these discussions shouldn't go on and on and on into a 2000 word discourse on the all singing, all dancing repository. -- 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