+1 Arnaud
On 9/22/05, Emmanuel Venisse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > +1 > > Emmanuel > > John Casey wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > Hi, > > > > As I'm sure most of you are aware, we have shipped all of the Maven 2 > > releases so far with support for a scripting language called Marmalade. > > This language was meant to replace Jelly, and provide a bridge for those > > developers with custom Jelly-based plugins to migrate onto M2. > > > > As the user interest in M2 soars, I see very few people trying to use > > Marmalade. It seems that the language is still too immature, and the > > runtime model of M2 is just too different for a Jelly-compatible mojo > > language to be useful. Actually, those of you who keep close tabs on the > > users list will undoubtedly notice that Marmalade is in fact causing a > > negative net effect on M2 uptake. I believe it is the only mojo > > development documentation we've published for M2, and that document no > > longer produces a working example, because the latest changes to the > > mojo descriptor API have broken the descriptor metadata in Marmalade. > > > > I'm the sole developer on the Marmalade project currently, and I haven't > > had too many people asking about it. While I'm still interested in it, I > > have to say that I'm not sure when I'll be able to give it the attention > > it deserves WRT integrating proper Ant support. And that's to say > > nothing of the integration hooks for supporting Marmalade mojos in M2. > > > > Therefore, I suggest that we remove all official support of Marmalade as > > a M2 mojo language, and let the Marmalade project take it over. We > > should remove the mojo development guide that is Marmalade oriented, and > > stop mentioning it as a viable option for mojo development. At the same > > time, I'm going to be working (in the next week or so) on Ant-based mojo > > support, which will effectively replace Marmalade for 99% of the use > > cases I've heard. > > > > Marmalade will still be available as a mojo language, we just won't be > > supporting it from this project...and maintenance of this integration > > will happen on a very different timescale. > > > > So, I'm putting this up for a vote. I'll leave it open for 72 hours (not > > that I think we need it), and reassess then. In this case, abstention > > signals assent. If you don't veto, I'll simply remove it. > > > > [] +1 - strongly support removal > > [] +0 - support removal in principle > > [] -0 - oppose removal in principle > > [] -1 - strongly oppose removal > > > > Here's my +1 for removal. > > > > Thanks, > > > > John > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) > > > > iD8DBQFDMfFmK3h2CZwO/4URAkYwAKCbB/dV6QTm/M5igrF2pYG+DlNW/gCdFGkA > > 7Rb0jzyvktB6J6uofJKPIl4= > > =nW// > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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] > >
