On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 8:08 AM, Grant Ingersoll <gsing...@apache.org>wrote:
> > At the end of the day, I don't see what the big deal is. For those of us > who want Maven, we need to step up and make it work seamlessly. Why should > you care if we do that? Given it gets fixed, it won't effect you. I > understand your concern now since it is broken, so I stand by the thought > that if we (the Maven campers) can't fix it by the next release it can be > dropped for that release. > > To me, the real problem is there does not seem to be consensus that maven is part of the release process. For example, you feel it is "defacto part of the release", and that calling it optional is removing a feature. Others have mentioned they feel it was always optional, and to be "part of releasing" needs a vote/some sort of consensus I already said that personally, if there is a way to verify that it works, *my* concerns go away. And if i was moving stuff around, or refactoring the build, or adding/upgrading a dependency, i don't mind at all hacking on some pom.xml in a minor way until something like 'ant test-maven' succeeds. But currently it is the onus of the RM to *eyeball all these xml files* and determine they are correct. Still, this is just my personal opinion, and doesn't speak for everyone else. So what i was trying to do was to get all the options out on the table: such as maven maintained downstream, maven part of the release, maven not part of the release, etc. -- Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com
