+1 We've offered our help from Eclipse IAM in the past [1], and maybe we can get the Eclipse Buckminster folks to lend a hand.
Since there are many external parties interested, having a clear roadmap/project plan for what would be an "stable" embedder would be extremely useful. As Milos mentions, I would like to avoid researching a bugfix for something that is meant to be rewritten. [1] http://www.eclipse.org/newsportal/article.php?id=48&group=eclipse.technology.m2e#48 Abel Muiño Milos Kleint wrote: > > oh, and one more thing. > > I'm willing to add a helping hand with stabilisation, however I've > been burned a few times in the past when I did. There's no point > fixing any issue when 2 weeks later everything gets washed away and > changed completely. > > Milos > > On 8/8/08, Milos Kleint <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> please, please, let's not add anything else to trunk (2.1) and >> stabilize it. I've been waiting for a stable embeddable version for 2 >> years and with the number of work (complete rewrites of everything) >> in the branches, a stable maven.next looks years ahead again. >> >> Not having an embeddable maven that works in the IDE integrations >> hurts the adoption and trust of users. >> >> Just my 2 cents. >> >> >> Milos >> >> >> On 8/8/08, Brian E. Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > I have been saying that the trunk is too changed for 2.1 for a while >> > also. I think having it as 3.0 is probably the logical thing to do >> and >> > then we can really buckle 2.0 down as it should be and start making >> > these bigger destabilizing fixes/small features to a 2.1 branch cut >> from >> > 2.0.10. Unless 2.0.10 gets worked out real soon, perhaps we even go >> back >> > to 2.0.9 and branch there (ie 2.0.10 becomes 2.1.0) >> > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Brett Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 11:16 PM >> > To: Maven Developers List >> > Subject: Re: Versioning Maven (was: Re: Maven 2.1 development IRC >> > roundtable) >> > >> > >> > On 08/08/2008, at 12:24 PM, Paul Benedict wrote: >> > >> > > Is TRUNK really 3.0? Hmm.. Maybe not. I think it is only >> appropriate >> > > to bump the first number when you make a major architecture change. >> It >> > > was totally appropriate between 1.x and 2.x because the code bases >> are >> > > absolutely incompatible. Why I should believe the same for TRUNK >> now? >> > > It still looks like 2.1 -- evolution -- not 3.0 -- revolution. >> Let's >> > > not forget this famous popular Apache email >> > >> > A significant advance would warrant a 3.0, incompatibility is not a >> > requirement. If it can still be backwards compatible then all the >> > better (though managed incompatibilities would be acceptable). Look >> at >> > Jetty, Tomcat, etc. Some major releases required migration, some >> didn't. >> > >> > > http://incubator.apache.org/learn/rules-for-revolutionaries.html >> > >> > I definitely think that's a good way to operate, and it's a good, >> > quick, read. >> > >> > Most of the work being proposed is operating under these rules to >> some >> > extent. It's been done in the sandbox or branches for later proposal >> > for inclusion/replacement of trunk. It's definitely revolutionary - >> > every subsystem is being reviewed or replaced to give us the ability >> > to fix some of the more challenging issues. Even though I'm sure >> there >> > is consensus that is the right way to go, timing is the issue. There >> > is not consensus that it should be Maven.NEXT. >> > >> > Right now our evolutionary track is 2.0.x, and that seems wrong to a >> > lot of people. It limits us to very few improvements as folks are >> > expecting only bugfixes, with good reason. >> > >> > But also our evolutionary track needs to be something we can release, >> > and that's not trunk today. Taking 2.0.10 as a baseline and applying >> > some sensible, well managed improvements (which may well include >> > adopting the alternate project builder, for example, as well as >> others >> > already mentioned) makes a lot of sense. >> > >> > Cheers, >> > Brett >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Brett Porter >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/ >> > >> > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > >> > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > >> > >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > ----- http://www.linkedin.com/in/amuino Abel Muiño Vizcaino - http://ramblingabout.wordpress.com http://ramblingabout.wordpress.com -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Versioning-Maven-%28was%3A-Re%3A-Maven-2.1-development-IRC-roundtable%29-tp18875440p18914964.html Sent from the Maven Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
