On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Mark Miller <markrmil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If I remember right, a large reason Robert is against is that he doesn't want > to sign/support/endorse something he doesn't understand or care about as a > Release Manager? But thats probably a major simplification of his previous > arguments. And the pro Maven team has offered their counters to that. > Well, i definitely don't want to produce a jacked-up release. And I listed in the last 99-email maven thread, a reference to how many of the previous releases have had various bugs/problems with maven. The problem is, as it is in our code now, there is no way to verify these magical files will actually work. and yet we all just ignore the fact we are probably shipping broken artifacts and go with the release anyway? (separately, for reference i know that Uwe has the releasing down to an art and is probably the sole person here that could actually do a release without having maven jacked up, so he isn't included) But for the rest of us, we don't understand maven. why can't it be handled downstream? And it sets a tone for future things, for instance *the most popular issue* in lucene, its not flexible indexing, its not realtime search, its not column stride fields, its... make Lucene an OSGI bundle? https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE?report=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.project:popularissues-panel Anyway i think we are making a search engine library, and if someone else can deal with these hassles, they should. we should focus on search engine stuff and getting out solid releases. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
