> (BTW, I love the "Maven is Magic" (and really any "It's magic, therefore I > don't like it") reasoning for not liking it, whereby everyone complains that > b/c Maven hides a bunch of details from you (i.e. it's "magic"), therefore > you don't like it. At the same time, I'm sure said person doesn't understand > every last detail of, oh, I don't know: the CPU, RAM, the Compiler, the JDK, > etc. and yet they have no problem using that. In other words, we deal with > abstractions all the time. It's fine if you don't get the abstraction or > don't personally find it useful, but that doesn't make the abstraction bad.) > > -Grant
Maven is not bad because it's magic - magic is frigging great - I want my software to be magic - it's bad because every 5 line program from some open source code/project that I have tried to build with it has gone on an absurd downloading spree that takes forever because it's getting many tiny files. This downloading spree never corresponds to the size of the code base I am working with, and always manages to surprise by the amount of time it can slurp up. That's enough for me right there - I've heard others talk of other non magical things that sound scary, but I won't dig any deeper into this absurdity. Either I *really* don't like Maven, or no one knows how to properly set it up - which makes me still not like it. When the magic is absurd, it loses a little of its magic. Finally, there is a difference between releasing source code, releasing signed jars, and signed maven files, and *just* releasing signed jars. Dropping maven doesn't get you back down to releasing source code. I still think Maven should be a downstream issue. - Mark --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
