On Sep 22, 2010, at 8:26 AM, Robert Muir wrote: > > > 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
Does an Indic Analyzer have to be part of the release? I have no need for it and it is optional for a lot (likely most) of people. It's a pain for me as I have no way of knowing that it is really working b/c I don't speak the language. Besides, I don't know if the Unit Tests are comprehensive so there could be things broken in it. Can I choose to not include it if I am the RM? Same goes for Armenian and all of the other languages I don't speak. Same goes for the Berkeley DB stuff, the Surround Query Parser, Instantiated Index and a whole slew of other "features" we release that I, as an RM, have no use for. My life as an RM would be a whole lot easier if I simply packaged up core and Solr as source and put them up for download. Heck, why bother releasing the docs? Some of it isn't always correct and I don't have a way to test that automatically either. Shall I continue? We've been providing Maven releases since 2005. That's Lucene 1.2!!!!!!!!! That's pretty much longer than everyone here has been a committer other than Hatcher and Otis. So, yeah, I do think it is removing a pretty big feature. > > 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. Again, for the 5th or 6th time, this is why I said the onus is on those who want Maven to fix it. I don't expect you to care about it but that doesn't mean you should prevent it from being in the release. I totally agree that it needs to be fixed, but don't act like it is any different from the myriad of other things that we release, some of which are broken as well. Besides the main stuff that is broken w/ Maven is not the core pieces, but contribs. > > 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. I get your reasoning, but unfortunately, because you don't understand how Maven works you don't realize why maintaining it downstream is not an option. Sorry. -Grant --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
