On Sat, 2003-11-08 at 05:09, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Ok, I read what you said and we'll chalk it up to miscommunication and a misunderstanding. I am admittedly obstinate and can be unflexible, I never meant the level of animosity to grow to the point that it did. I sincerely apologize.
I sincerely appreciate it, thanks.
What I did see was massive duplication of efforts in Apache and elsewhere that I did not want to accept.
There is Gump, why POM? There is Ant, why Jelly? There is Centipede cents, why Maven plugins?
Simply that was the decision of the Maven developers, ok.
We definitely made those decisions and I think you have to look at what
the outcome was.
Maven has made a big result, though I doubt that it has been because of how it's implemented, rather because of what it enables users to do. If the descriptor would had been the Gump one instead, I really don't think it would have changed the outcome, nor if Ant had been used instead.
But this is my personal opinion, and this is the path I followed, although with less perseverance and dedication than you. Your efforts in Maven have been and still are outstanding.
...
Anyone can search through all the Apache archives and see that I made no huge lobbying effort to shove Maven down anyone's throat. I even asked that Jon Steven's cease and desist when hailed Maven as the grand replacement on Jakarta.
Again AFAIK this is correct. From what I have seen and perceived, your position has never been about pushing things down others' throats.
...
But please leave me the possibility to have a different opinion on this way of doing things.
It is often that I have noted to people that Maven is not the solution for them. Lot's of folks on the Maven list have been met with my responses to find a more suitable tool for their task. I have in fact pointed them at Ant and Centipede.
What I meant is not about implementation, but about doing things collaboratively rather than in competition.
http://www.jroller.com/page/nicolaken/20030228
I don't see why would an indipendent and cross-project repository effort and library have to be under Maven.
It certainly doesn't but you also can't ignore what Maven has done for the notion of a repository.
Of course.
In any case I think that if you wish to incubate Ruper then I am +1.
Thanks. I hope that the results will be so good that Maven will be compelled to use it. I also hope that Maven developers will participate in the project.
Jason, thanks for your fair and clear comments. I hope that this can put an end to our incomprehensions about what happened.
I think we have, which is definitely a good thing.
+1
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
