On 2013-05-21, Adam R. B. Jack wrote:

> I hesitate to reply since I've not contributed in quite some time (and
> yes, that is some *significant* British understatement. ;-)

But your input is still appreciated, don't worry.

> That said, the fact that the burden of metadata maintenance has been
> on Gump committers speaks volumes (either to it's usability or it's
> acceptance.) Perhaps the value that Gump provides (i.e. early warning
> of backwards compatibility issues) is just too far removed from those
> working on projects to be anything more than a nagging annoyance. It
> is a voice for the user of a library, but few seemed to appreciate it
> as such.

Yes, likely.  A short-sighted "mvn does dependency management for us, we
don't have this problem" mindset seems to be prevalent by now.

> I definitely believe that Gump committers alone should NOT do the bulk
> of the metadata maintenance and issue resolving, however I wonder if
> it is the type of services that won't be missed until it is gone, and
> if this discussion should be put to a wider community (once fully
> discussed here.)

Good idea.  In case we's near consensus that the current set of Gump
gardeners doesn't want to continue with the current state of affairs, we
definitively should reach out to those communities who still have
metadata inside of Gump.


To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@gump.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@gump.apache.org

Reply via email to