On 11/9/08, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Jochen Wiedmann > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > > On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 7:51 PM, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > For example, one of the reasons people don't want to bring things to > > Commons > > > any more is because they have to buy in to the entire Commons enchilada. > > > Consistent build systems, consistent web sites, consistent release > > criteria, > > > and so on. This consistency is crucial when Commons is being promoted to > > the > > > "outside world", because it allows consumers to understand what they will > > > see / get from any given component. I believe it's a big part of what has > > > made Commons a "brand" in and of itself, and for Commons as an > > > externally-facing project, it's definitely a Good Thing (tm). > > > > I don't agree with that. IMO, it's gross how much a commons > > subproject is influenced by others. I'd clearly prefer if the subprojects > > were > > completely driven by those who actually do the subprojects work. > > > But that's exactly my point. If you're a (prospective) Commons developer, > you quite likely don't want to have to buy into the whole Commons enchilada, > and would likely prefer to just get on and do things your own way. However, > if you're someone looking to consume Commons within an enterprise (which is > part of what I meant by the "outside world"), that consistency across all > Commons components is a great benefit, because once you understand how one > of them works, you understand how they all work (within reason, of course). >
Not sure I agree with either of the conclusions above - either the statement about what users like or what causes pain for contributors. Regarding users, while I don't have hard data to support this, I suspect that the vast majority of commons users (inside and outside the ASF) don't muck with the builds at all - i.e., they download jars or have maven do it and just use the components. For this use, it makes no difference whether the jars were built using Ant, Maven 1, Maven 2 or something else. So I don't agree with the statement that everyone using the same build structure helps users all that much. Common look-and-feel for sites may have some value, but as long as the nav is not horrendous, I personally don't see this as a big deal. I don't remember users complaining about it when we had a mix of maven and anakia-generated sites a few years back. I also disagree with the "whole enchilada" idea as the primary cause of pain for contributors. The problem for new contributors is getting builds to work at all and then for the true punishment-seekers, navigating the release process. The release obstacles here are as much ASF obstacles as commmons - lots of quasi-documented requirements about what has to be included, what to vote on, how tags need to work, etc. At the end of the Maven 1 period, we at least had a documented process for building and cutting releases that made it a little easier for people to get started and even push out releases. My HO here is that if we could get a really fully functional standardized way to build and release in M2, it would actually be a lot easier for people and there would be no reason for people to want to "do their own thing" since the standardized way would save them boring work. We have gotten close to this thanks to Niall,. Dennis, Rahul and a few others and I think things will be better when we have sorted out the last bits. That said, I have always maintained that do-ocracy should trump tidiness here, so those doing the work to develop and cut releases should be allowed to choose, as long as what we vote on ends up meeting ASF requirements. Phil > -- > Martin Cooper > > > Jochen > > > > > > -- > > I have always wished for my computer to be as easy to use as my > > telephone; my wish has come true because I can no longer figure out > > how to use my telephone. > > > > -- (Bjarne Stroustrup, > > http://www.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq.html#really-say-that<http://www.research.att.com/%7Ebs/bs_faq.html#really-say-that> > > My guess: Nokia E50) > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
