+1 Emmanuel
2010/8/6 Arnaud Héritier <aherit...@gmail.com> > Ok, > > Thus talking is good but doing is better ( I know I'm talking more than > I'm doing :-) ) > > Could we have a consensus if we : > - release now the trunk as a beta 2 without Guice and Aether. With that > we'll have a solid base to compare future changes with. We know it is stable > and it is better than beta 1 (it solves some issues like for the site plugin > and also in // builds). If the vote is called now we can deliver it to users > for Monday. > - just after the beta2 release we merge changes required for Aether and > Guice and we start the release process for a beta 3 we'll deliver at the end > of next week. > > With that we'll try to receive feedback from users and we'll easily > validate if problems are related to Guice or Aether by comparing results > with both versions. > At the end of the month we can push out a new beta with all fixes we'll > have. It will be always possible to decide to remove Aether if some of you > have a better solution or aren't satisfied by the change (I would prefer to > have done that in an alpha releases cycle but now we are in beta we cannot > come back in rear). > > WDYT ? I think it is important to push out new releases to show to our > community that we are always active and we are going in the good direction. > > Arnaud > > > On Aug 5, 2010, at 11:06 PM, Dennis Lundberg wrote: > > > Hi all > > > > Some very important questions have been asked regarding Jason's > > proposal. I usually let my first impressions sink in a bit before I > > reply. That often help to make my comments more about the facts and less > > about the feelings, and we've seen a lot of feelings in this thread. > > > > The first thing I would like to happen is that we release 3.0-beta-2 > > *without* merging the proposed code. There are two reasons for this. > > > > 1. The Site Plugin, which most of you know is something that I've worked > > quite a lot on, is currently in limbo. On one hand we have the stable > > 2.x trunk of the plugin which works with Maven 2, but not with Maven 3. > > We also have a 3.0-SNAPSHOT branch of the plugin, thanks to Olivier and > > Hervé. But that currently don't work with any released version of Maven > > because of a bug in Maven 3.0-beta-1. In order to gain momentum and > > field testing for Maven Site Plugin 3.0 it needs a stable version of > > Maven to work with. There are too few people working on the Site Plugin, > > and if it needs to be rewritten yet again there is a risk that it will > > never be ready. > > > > 2. Release early, release often. Give the users a choice here. They can > > choose to use Maven 3.0-beta-2 which will work much like beta-1 did, but > > with lots of bugs fixed. Or a few weeks later they can use 3.0-beta-3 > > the proposed code changes merged in. If the new stuff doesn't work, for > > whatever reason, they can switch back to beta-2 while they wait for a > > bug fixed beta-4. > > > > As for they proposed code bases I am not qualified to make detailed > > comments, so my comments will be very high level. > > > > > > Guice > > > > IIUC this means that we would replace one (external) IOC container with > > another (external) IOC container. If the bar for being allowed to > > participate in the development of Guice is at the same level as it has > > been for Plexus, then I have no problem with this switch. > > > > I am +1 on integrating the Guice code after beta-2 has been released. > > > > > > Aether > > > > One thing that I really think has been successful here at Maven has been > > when we have set up proper APIs that abstracts the implementation and > > let the users pick a suitable implementation for their needs. Two > > subprojects come to mind: SCM and Wagon. > > > > If the API part of Aether is anything like that, then that's a good > > thing in my book. I haven't looked at the code, only the high level > > presentation, but I have high confidence in those who have worked on it. > > Having the API hosted outside of Apache is fine by me if it means that > > more projects will use it. The more the merrier. > > > > When it comes to the implementation I'm undecided. It does mean that we > > will make an integral part of Maven external, which can lead to problems > > with issue tracking etc, as pointed out by others. On the other hand it > > makes sense to use the collective knowledge of the people who is > > responsible for the API, to also work together on implementations. > > Perhaps the Maven repository implementation can be moved back to the > > Maven project, when things have settled down. > > > > I am +0 on integrating Aether after beta-2 has been released. I'll let > > others with more insights decide. > > > > > > On 2010-08-03 20:21, Jason van Zyl wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> We have two major pieces that we, Sonatype, would like to merge into > Maven 3.x trunk. > >> > >> The first are the Guice changes that we've been talking about for a > while, and the second is the introduction of Aether which is our second > attempt at a stand-alone repository API. The PMC is aware of Aether as Brian > reported it in our quarterly report to the Apache Board, but other > developers who are not on the PMC and the community in general might not > know much about it. > >> > >> I just posted an entry giving a very high level description: > >> > >> http://www.sonatype.com/people/2010/08/introducing-aether/ > >> > >> There is a resources section at the bottom of the post for those > interested in the sources, issue tracking, wiki and mailing lists. As part > of some of the research we are about to embark on with Daniel Le Berre, > Aether will likely look more like p2 as time passes and as a final resting > place the Eclipse Foundation is more likely then Apache. I know people will > ask so I'm answering that now. Sonatype is just about to fully move Tycho > over the Eclipse Foundation and we want to see how that goes. If that works, > then M2Eclipse is next, and then Aether will follow. > >> > >> At any rate we would like to merge these changes in and make plans to > release 3.0-beta-2. > >> > >> So please let us know if you have any objections. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Jason > >> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------- > >> Jason van Zyl > >> Founder, Apache Maven > >> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl > >> --------------------------------------------------------- > >> > >> First, the taking in of scattered particulars under one Idea, > >> so that everyone understands what is being talked about ... Second, > >> the separation of the Idea into parts, by dividing it at the joints, > >> as nature directs, not breaking any limb in half as a bad carver might. > >> > >> -- Plato, Phaedrus (Notes on the Synthesis of Form by C. Alexander) > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > Dennis Lundberg > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > >
