On Aug 30, 2012, at 8:33 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: >> I'm going to take the risk of making a fool of myself by asking, but: > > Not at all, those are good questions actually! > > >> I don't care so much about >> *how* something is done, I care greatly about *what* can be done. > > Well, that's exactly what it is about. Without having this source in our repo > again (where it originally was before it got moved out to codehaus and later > to some 'private' github repo), we cannot maintain maven effectively. That > sucks big times and hinders the daily development. >
That is simply not true. Kristian works on plexus-utils all the time, has never been hindered in the slightest and makes changes to the code all the time. Kristian if this is untrue then please feel free to correct me. You may not like where the code is, but your argument that you cannot effectively work on it is utter nonsense. If you naturally followed this argument to all dependencies and that you can't effectively leverage any code unless it's at Apache which is really really viable in the long-term. If you want to change it because you feel like it, or don't like that it's at Codehaus that's fine it's your time. Provided it doesn't harm the core I can't tell you what to do with your time and how you want to spend it. But there is proof to the contrary, at least with Kristian, that it's not hard to effectively maintain or release plexus-utils. In fact, I believe it's easier because he can make a fix, release it on a dime, and re-incorporate it back into Maven and not wait 72 hours. > >> I see a lot of (proposed) work going on here about incremental compilation, > >> hugely complex refactoring etc. > > Actually the refactorings are not that huge. It's a 1:1 import swap for most > of it. > > > Regarding the incremental build: This has nothing to do with Eclipse. I'm was > even aware that they have a problem. This is really something I personally > need as well - as do thousands of other maven users. My company build > currently takes 5 minutes as it has 98 modules atm. Other projects I > maintain/build regularely (OpenWebBeans, DeltaSpike, MyFaces, OpenJPA, > OpenEJB, ...) are not that large, but it's really annoying to always need to > clean a project and do all over again because the change detection is utter > broken currently. > > > People had the same fear as some people started working on the parallel build > support. > > I think it is really worth a try to get incremental builds done properly. > > > LieGrue, > strub > > >> ________________________________ >> From: Chris Graham <chrisgw...@gmail.com> >> To: Maven Developers List <dev@maven.apache.org>; Mark Struberg >> <strub...@yahoo.de> >> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 2:21 PM >> Subject: Re: Removing unused code from maven-shared-utils >> >> I'm going to take the risk of making a fool of myself by asking, but: >> >> I see a lot of (proposed) work going on here about incremental compilation, >> hugely complex refactoring etc. >> >> But, I've got to ask, what's the benefit? >> >> Or put another way, looking at the amount of effort, wouldn't it be better >> to spend the time elsewhere? >> >> I am aware of some of the issues that people like the eclipse foundation >> have had with incremental compilation, so I'd approach this one with >> caution. [From what I remember about it, anyway] >> >> These are just questions that I'd ask myself if I was going to attempt >> something like this. >> >> -Chris >> >> PS: I tend to approach things from a commericial point of view. I care far >> more about function rather than form, that is, I don't care so much about >> *how* something is done, I care greatly about *what* can be done. >> >> On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> wrote: >> >>> While digging thru the plexus-utils usage I wonder whether we should place >>> the maven-utils in maven-core or maven-shared. >>> >>> maven-core doesn't yet have any maven-shared dependency it seems. Which >>> means if we like to use them in maven-core as well we should relocate >>> maven-shared-utils to the maven-3 core module. >>> >>> wdyt? >>> >>> LieGrue, >>> strub >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: Kristian Rosenvold <kristian.rosenv...@gmail.com> >>>> To: Maven Developers List <dev@maven.apache.org> >>>> Cc: >>>> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 10:48 AM >>>> Subject: Re: Removing unused code from maven-shared-utils >>>> >>>> Well obviously given the current number of failing >>>> tests,maven-shared-utils is going nowhere right now ;) >>>> >>>> I will do a test-migration and remove unused code in >>>> org.apache.maven.shared.utils.io before we release. >>>> >>>> Kristian >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org >>>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org >>> >>> >> >> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > Thanks, Jason ---------------------------------------------------------- Jason van Zyl Founder & CTO, Sonatype Founder, Apache Maven http://twitter.com/jvanzyl --------------------------------------------------------- People develop abstractions by generalizing from concrete examples. Every attempt to determine the correct abstraction on paper without actually developing a running system is doomed to failure. No one is that smart. A framework is a resuable design, so you develop it by looking at the things it is supposed to be a design of. The more examples you look at, the more general your framework will be. -- Ralph Johnson & Don Roberts, Patterns for Evolving Frameworks
