> Time marches on, Maven improves (I assume, I've > not yet used it) and I don't see why folks would want to use > Ant (for the simple 'build'/'test' portion of continuous > integration) if Maven meets it's goals.
I'm not sure the Ant folk would share your view here :) It's actually quite amusing (and refreshing) to see this sort of opinion - usually it is the direct opposite (why would I use Maven when I can already do all of that in Ant?) > I am really torn & looking for input. I think the current direction regarding Maven is the right one. As far as collaboration goes, I believe that's what we are doing now. I look forward to being able to gump projects using Maven. There is no ivory tower in that regard: if everyone got together and sorted out exactly what was needed first, nothing would ever get done. Ant and Maven co-exist: they do some things the same, they do some of the same things differently, and they do completely different things sometimes. This isn't a bad thing, because you can't be everything to everyone. The same will apply to gump and continuum and any other CI tools out there. There'll be shared functionality and there'll be differing functionality. That's fine. The important thing is that nobody is rewriting an identical app for the sake of it, or rewriting components for the sake of it when the functionality is already out there. The future of Maven, as Jason blogged about and which is what started the thread, is to become more componentised. Various useful bits and pieces such as a Java SCM framework, artifact handling and more will be made available to everyone, and everyone is welcome to join the lists and collaborate on them too. I don't believe these are things that are already sitting around at Apache. Cheer up, everything is going to be ok :) Cheers, Brett
