There's been little to no feedback on beta-2 so I honestly don't think it
matters.
feedback from Maven developers was good: since people complain only when it
does not work, I suppose no feedback = it works as good as for Maven
developers.
I agree, I consider also the no feedback as good
Cool!
+1 for merges!
Thanks,
~t~
2010/8/18 Arnaud Héritier aherit...@gmail.com
Hi,
I just rebuilt aether and maven3 and I have now : 14M/125M
We are really near of 9M/125M we have in beta2
Perfect !!!
Let's go for a merge in trunk ??
Arnaud
So the plan is that we're going to do a release of spice-inject as fast as we
can and then do the merge. So that will likely happen early next week. Until
then folks can pick things up from Benjamin's branch:
http://github.com/bentmann/maven-3
On Aug 19, 2010, at 4:20 AM, Tamás Cservenák
Arnaud Héritier wrote:
3.0-benjamin (built yesterday) : 14M/2488M in 5:23.389s (It probably swapped a
lot)
Should be fixed now, would be cool if you could double-check when time
allows.
Benjamin
-
To unsubscribe,
It's always in GitHub or the merge started in trunk ?
I'll try to build and test it this evening.
Thx
On Aug 18, 2010, at 1:59 PM, Benjamin Bentmann wrote:
Arnaud Héritier wrote:
3.0-benjamin (built yesterday) : 14M/2488M in 5:23.389s (It probably swapped
a lot)
Should be fixed now,
Arnaud Héritier wrote:
It's always in GitHub or the merge started in trunk ?
It's still in github.
I'll try to build and test it this evening.
Cool, thanks!
Benjamin
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
Le mercredi 18 août 2010, Arnaud Héritier a écrit :
It's always in GitHub or the merge started in trunk ?
BTW, we have 3.0-beta-2 released without Guice nor Aether and GitHub with both
Guice and Aether.
What about merging Guice in svn trunk, so we can test the 3 major steps: 3.0-
beta-2, +Guice,
On Aug 18, 2010, at 12:59 PM, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote:
Le mercredi 18 août 2010, Arnaud Héritier a écrit :
It's always in GitHub or the merge started in trunk ?
BTW, we have 3.0-beta-2 released without Guice nor Aether and GitHub with
both
Guice and Aether.
What about merging Guice in svn
I'd love to offer more feedback on beta-2, but since it totally breaks our
builds it's a non-starter. Without reworking our entire build setup ( which
we're going to do anyway when we move to git ) M3 is effectively unusable
for my main $work project.
Which is a shame as all the new things look
Hi,
I just rebuilt aether and maven3 and I have now : 14M/125M
We are really near of 9M/125M we have in beta2
Perfect !!!
Let's go for a merge in trunk ??
Arnaud
On Aug 7, 2010, at 2:37 PM, Arnaud Héritier wrote:
Results I had yesterday were :
3.0-benjamin (built yesterday) :
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 10:10 PM, Jason van Zyl ja...@sonatype.com wrote:
There's been little to no feedback on beta-2 so I honestly don't think it
matters.
That's good news, isn't it? :-)
--
I Am What I Am And That's All What I Yam (Popeye)
Le mercredi 18 août 2010, Jason van Zyl a écrit :
On Aug 18, 2010, at 12:59 PM, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote:
Le mercredi 18 août 2010, Arnaud Héritier a écrit :
It's always in GitHub or the merge started in trunk ?
BTW, we have 3.0-beta-2 released without Guice nor Aether and GitHub with
both
On Aug 18, 2010, at 10:47 PM, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote:
Le mercredi 18 août 2010, Jason van Zyl a écrit :
On Aug 18, 2010, at 12:59 PM, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote:
Le mercredi 18 août 2010, Arnaud Héritier a écrit :
It's always in GitHub or the merge started in trunk ?
BTW, we have 3.0-beta-2
On Aug 18, 2010, at 1:43 PM, Arnaud Héritier wrote:
Hi,
I just rebuilt aether and maven3 and I have now : 14M/125M
We are really near of 9M/125M we have in beta2
Perfect !!!
Let's go for a merge in trunk ??
Yup, let's merge it all in and move forward.
Arnaud
On Aug 7, 2010,
Le mercredi 18 août 2010, Jason van Zyl a écrit :
On Aug 18, 2010, at 1:43 PM, Arnaud Héritier wrote:
Hi,
I just rebuilt aether and maven3 and I have now : 14M/125M
We are really near of 9M/125M we have in beta2
Perfect !!!
Let's go for a merge in trunk ??
Yup, let's merge
Hi,
Let's go for merge ! (with last spice version 1.3.3-SNAPSHOT or
released version to have a fix for SPICE-34).
Herve : regarding site plugin there is a patch here (
https://issues.sonatype.org/secure/attachment/23615/site-plugin-guice-eather.patch
).
2010/8/18 Hervé BOUTEMY
Well.. can we get that patch applied and a new release of the maven 3 site
plugin as well then.
manfred
PS: beta 2 works on all my projects..
Hi,
Let's go for merge ! (with last spice version 1.3.3-SNAPSHOT or
released version to have a fix for SPICE-34).
Herve : regarding site plugin
Le mercredi 18 août 2010, Olivier Lamy a écrit :
Herve : regarding site plugin there is a patch here (
https://issues.sonatype.org/secure/attachment/23615/site-plugin-guice-eathe
r.patch ).
yes, I know the patch (I studied it since our last discussion), but that
doesn't make the future maven
2010/8/18 Hervé BOUTEMY herve.bout...@free.fr:
Le mercredi 18 août 2010, Olivier Lamy a écrit :
Herve : regarding site plugin there is a patch here (
https://issues.sonatype.org/secure/attachment/23615/site-plugin-guice-eathe
r.patch ).
yes, I know the patch (I studied it since our last
Olivier Lamy wrote:
So maybe having a compatibility even if we are in a beta release
process (benjamin ?)
I don't feel motivated to maintain yet another layer of compat/bridge
code for the sake of single beta plugin.
Benjamin
2010/8/18 Benjamin Bentmann benjamin.bentm...@udo.edu:
Olivier Lamy wrote:
So maybe having a compatibility even if we are in a beta release
process (benjamin ?)
I don't feel motivated to maintain yet another layer of compat/bridge code
for the sake of single beta plugin.
ok np for me.
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 11:18 PM, Hervé BOUTEMY herve.bout...@free.fr wrote:
I have only one concern with current maven-3 code in GitHub: it's not
compatible with maven-site-plugin 3.0-beta-1
I think, that's a blocker for a new beta release, but not for a merge, isn't it?
Jochen
--
I Am
Le mercredi 18 août 2010, Olivier Lamy a écrit :
2010/8/18 Benjamin Bentmann benjamin.bentm...@udo.edu:
Olivier Lamy wrote:
So maybe having a compatibility even if we are in a beta release
process (benjamin ?)
I don't feel motivated to maintain yet another layer of compat/bridge
code
Le jeudi 19 août 2010, Jochen Wiedmann a écrit :
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 11:18 PM, Hervé BOUTEMY herve.bout...@free.fr
wrote:
I have only one concern with current maven-3 code in GitHub: it's not
compatible with maven-site-plugin 3.0-beta-1
I think, that's a blocker for a new beta
+1
On 18 August 2010 22:02, Jason van Zyl ja...@sonatype.com wrote:
On Aug 18, 2010, at 1:43 PM, Arnaud Héritier wrote:
Hi,
I just rebuilt aether and maven3 and I have now : 14M/125M
We are really near of 9M/125M we have in beta2
Perfect !!!
Let's go for a merge in trunk ??
On Aug 8, 2010, at 11:34 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
On 09/08/2010, at 12:39 PM, Mark Derricutt wrote:
Wouldn't this have the same problem with Apache based code? Doesn't the
Apache Contributor agreements say you assigned copyright over to Apache?
No, it doesn't.
It is a grant not
On 07/08/2010, at 9:47 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
On Aug 7, 2010, at 1:44 AM, Brett Porter wrote:
Unavoidable. We're not going to bring in everyone other dependency and any
developer worth their salt can figure out how to pull in sources for
dependent projects. Aether is all JIRA and
On Aug 8, 2010, at 8:18 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
On 07/08/2010, at 9:47 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
On Aug 7, 2010, at 1:44 AM, Brett Porter wrote:
Unavoidable. We're not going to bring in everyone other dependency and any
developer worth their salt can figure out how to pull in
On 09/08/2010, at 10:55 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
So I refute this with an act by Kristian today which was to sign the
Sonatype CLA, sign up for the mailing list, asked for access to the wiki,
already has access and has been working with Benjamin. You'll also notice
he hasn't
On Aug 8, 2010, at 9:17 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
On 09/08/2010, at 10:55 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
So I refute this with an act by Kristian today which was to sign the
Sonatype CLA, sign up for the mailing list, asked for access to the wiki,
already has access and has been working with
Wouldn't this have the same problem with Apache based code? Doesn't the
Apache Contributor agreements say you assigned copyright over to Apache?
As you say - out of scope for the list. I'll take my answer off-list (mmm,
sounds like a talk back radio caller!).
--
Pull me down under...
On Mon,
On 09/08/2010, at 12:39 PM, Mark Derricutt wrote:
Wouldn't this have the same problem with Apache based code? Doesn't the
Apache Contributor agreements say you assigned copyright over to Apache?
No, it doesn't.
- Brett
--
Brett Porter
br...@apache.org
http://brettporter.wordpress.com/
On Aug 7, 2010, at 1:44 AM, Brett Porter wrote:
And doesn't that show that you could have done the same thing with Aether? :)
Could happen with anything, it's only dependent on what people do.
It is not an easily reversible step, and I want to ensure that anyone that
wants to get an
On 07/08/2010, at 12:44 AM, Arnaud Héritier wrote:
The advantage is to do what I did this morning in few minutes.
I found a OOME on Aether/Guice branch (reported to benjamin but not in MNG
because it's not yet integrated) and then I validated it wasn't here in
current trunk.
The problem
On Aug 7, 2010, at 1:44 AM, Brett Porter wrote:
Unavoidable. We're not going to bring in everyone other dependency and any
developer worth their salt can figure out how to pull in sources for
dependent projects. Aether is all JIRA and Confluence it's not a big leap
for anyone here.
On Aug 7, 2010, at 7:26 AM, Brett Porter wrote:
On 07/08/2010, at 12:44 AM, Arnaud Héritier wrote:
The advantage is to do what I did this morning in few minutes.
I found a OOME on Aether/Guice branch (reported to benjamin but not in MNG
because it's not yet integrated) and then I
Results I had yesterday were :
3.0-benjamin (built yesterday) : 14M/2488M in 5:23.389s (It probably swapped a
lot)
3.0-beta-2 (downloaded few minutes ago) : 9M/125M built in 23.723s
2.2.1 : 67M/136M built in 30s
I only built one module :
+1
+1
S.
---
[image: Linkedin] http://www.linkedin.com/in/snicoll[image:
Twitter]http://twitter.com/snicoll
2010/8/6 Arnaud Héritier aherit...@gmail.com
Ok,
Thus talking is good but doing is better ( I know I'm talking more than
I'm doing :-) )
Could we have a consensus if we :
-
2010/8/5 Arnaud Héritier aherit...@gmail.com:
Ok,
Thus talking is good but doing is better ( I know I'm talking more than I'm
doing :-) )
Could we have a consensus if we :
- release now the trunk as a beta 2 without Guice and Aether. With that
we'll have a solid base to compare future
+1
Emmanuel
2010/8/6 Arnaud Héritier aherit...@gmail.com
Ok,
Thus talking is good but doing is better ( I know I'm talking more than
I'm doing :-) )
Could we have a consensus if we :
- release now the trunk as a beta 2 without Guice and Aether. With that
we'll have a solid base to
On Aug 6, 2010, at 10:01 AM, Brian Fox wrote:
2010/8/5 Arnaud Héritier aherit...@gmail.com:
Ok,
Thus talking is good but doing is better ( I know I'm talking more than I'm
doing :-) )
Could we have a consensus if we :
- release now the trunk as a beta 2 without Guice and Aether.
There is one huge advantage to two releases, however:
You know that if the bug exists in both places, you don't have to dig
through this huge pile of code that is the new container. That's a large
set of assumptions you don't have to check.
On 8/6/10 10:10 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
On Aug
+1 and if you're so concerned about the official beta2/beta3 thing you can
just build an official internal release that can be provided on demand to
reproduce the problem. I don't see what the problem could be if we explain
to the community what we're trying to achieve. It is in their best
Given that Arnaud found a bad memory leak in the Aether/Guice version I
think it would be good to get beta-2 out now without Aether/Guice
Then fix the leak and roll beta-3 as soon as the leak is fixed
-Stephen
On 6 August 2010 15:10, Jason van Zyl ja...@sonatype.com wrote:
On Aug 6, 2010, at
On Aug 6, 2010, at 10:14 AM, John Casey wrote:
There is one huge advantage to two releases, however:
You know that if the bug exists in both places, you don't have to dig through
this huge pile of code that is the new container. That's a large set of
assumptions you don't have to check.
Then we wait until we fix it. What difference does a week make at this point.
Honestly?
On Aug 6, 2010, at 10:27 AM, Stephen Connolly wrote:
Given that Arnaud found a bad memory leak in the Aether/Guice version I
think it would be good to get beta-2 out now without Aether/Guice
Then fix
The advantage is to do what I did this morning in few minutes.
I found a OOME on Aether/Guice branch (reported to benjamin but not in MNG
because it's not yet integrated) and then I validated it wasn't here in current
trunk.
The problem is that I had to rebuild both of them hat users won't do.
On Aug 6, 2010, at 10:44 AM, Arnaud Héritier wrote:
The advantage is to do what I did this morning in few minutes.
I found a OOME on Aether/Guice branch (reported to benjamin but not in MNG
because it's not yet integrated) and then I validated it wasn't here in
current trunk.
The problem
I think user issues can be addressed with some naming magic. Instead
of 3.0-beta2 and 3.0-beta3, go with 3.0-beta2, and 3.0-beta2a
It's still forward, and it implies that they're similar or related
versions, and the notes/announce on it can be clear, but it won't
carry the implication
You could also cut beta-2 today and just not release it. Move on to beta-3
immediately to merge. If the merge turns out to be a disaster, at least you
have a branch and an artifact to deploy as a backup plan. Regardless, I
don't expect anything to go tragically wrong.
From my perspective of a
Yes but the main issue is that nobody will test aether/guice before the release
of the beta (and more before a real GA).
We can suppose we'll find some others issues like the OOEM I had and thus this
beta will be useless (for me it is in the current state = 14M/2488M
5:23.389s vs 9M/125M
I'm not so concerned about confusing users with a beta2 and then a
beta3, that can be mitigated easily in the announcement. More releases
won't hurt anyone.
Let those working on it decide what to do and when presented with a
vote, I'll test, verify and vote accordingly, regardless of if it's
+1
Vincent
Le 2010-08-05 à 20:04, Arnaud Héritier aherit...@gmail.com a
écrit :
Ok,
Thus talking is good but doing is better ( I know I'm talking more
than I'm doing :-) )
Could we have a consensus if we :
- release now the trunk as a beta 2 without Guice and Aether. With
that
On Aug 6, 2010, at 11:22 AM, Brian Fox wrote:
I'm not so concerned about confusing users with a beta2 and then a
beta3, that can be mitigated easily in the announcement. More releases
won't hurt anyone.
If we were deciding to leave Guice/Aether to Maven 3.1 then my opinion would be
let it
On 07/08/2010, at 1:22 AM, Brian Fox wrote:
I'm not so concerned about confusing users with a beta2 and then a
beta3, that can be mitigated easily in the announcement. More releases
won't hurt anyone.
Let those working on it decide what to do and when presented with a
vote, I'll test,
On Aug 6, 2010, at 11:54 AM, Brett Porter wrote:
On 07/08/2010, at 1:22 AM, Brian Fox wrote:
I'm not so concerned about confusing users with a beta2 and then a
beta3, that can be mitigated easily in the announcement. More releases
won't hurt anyone.
Let those working on it decide what
I think it would be helpful if two JIRA tickets were created for the
separate integrations. This way, people can track and report back on any
issues they find -- plus know what release it planned for. I, being a
bystander who watches the development, I did not know these two things were
planned.
Point of vue of a Maven user :
We need to have a new beta release, ie beta-2 since the beta-1 is now
3/4 months old and Maven 2.2.1 is one year old.
This will help us show our co-workers and may be more important, our
IT managers, that Maven 3.0 progress.
They didn't follow maven-dev list and
Le vendredi 06 août 2010, Jason van Zyl a écrit :
Why don't you just try the site plugin with the branch with Aether and
Guice and make sure it works?
I built Benjamin's branch for myself and tried mvn -Prun-its install on
maven-site-plugin 3.0-beta-1-SNAPSHOT branch and got failure for evey
So even though I'm on vacation this week I took the time to get the code from
git and read the wiki. Now I am even more concerned, even though I have read
everyone's responses.
Aether is NOT a replacement for the Wagon, from what I can tell it replaces all
the artifact resolution handling.
Hi,
I have fixed it locally.
You can have a look at the patch for site plugin attached here :
https://issues.sonatype.org/browse/SPICE-33.
But you must have a look too at SPICE-33 and use last SNAPSHOT of
guice/plexus stuff.
2010/8/6 Hervé BOUTEMY herve.bout...@free.fr:
Le vendredi 06 août
Hervé BOUTEMY wrote:
java.lang.NoSuchMethodError:
org.apache.maven.plugin.MavenPluginManager.getPluginDescriptor(Lorg/apache/maven/model/Plugin;Lorg/apache/maven/artifact/repository/RepositoryRequest;)Lorg/apache/maven/plugin/descriptor/PluginDescriptor;
I adjusted the 3.x API, so just sync
Le mardi 03 août 2010, Benjamin Bentmann a écrit :
Jason van Zyl wrote:
At any rate we would like to merge these changes in and make plans to
release 3.0-beta-2.
Just in case, those changes currently live at
http://github.com/bentmann/maven-3/
I had a look at the branch, and don't
Hervé BOUTEMY wrote:
I had a look at the branch, and don't understand how the new maven-artifact-
descriptor module is used to extend Aether in Maven 3.
It enables Aether to extract dependency information out of POMs, similar
in purpose to the MavenMetadataSource in 2.x
- RepositorySystem
On Aug 6, 2010, at 2:23 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
So even though I'm on vacation this week I took the time to get the code from
git and read the wiki. Now I am even more concerned, even though I have read
everyone's responses.
Aether is NOT a replacement for the Wagon, from what I can tell
On 07/08/2010, at 2:05 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
On Aug 6, 2010, at 11:54 AM, Brett Porter wrote:
On 07/08/2010, at 1:22 AM, Brian Fox wrote:
I'm not so concerned about confusing users with a beta2 and then a
beta3, that can be mitigated easily in the announcement. More releases
On Aug 6, 2010, at 10:08 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
On 07/08/2010, at 2:05 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
On Aug 6, 2010, at 11:54 AM, Brett Porter wrote:
On 07/08/2010, at 1:22 AM, Brian Fox wrote:
I'm not so concerned about confusing users with a beta2 and then a
beta3, that can be
On 07/08/2010, at 1:23 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
Ideally there should be no API leakage from Aether. As part of the plugin API
we should provide access to whatever resolution functionality we feel is
necessary to expose and hide Aether. Initially a few attempts are likely
needed and I
To my point earlier, perhaps beta-2 could be tagged/cut/released before the
merges take place. Once the merges take place, you could spin beta-3 with
these new additions rather quickly. I would consider that to be good plan --
at one time, Jason did posted that wanted betas to be released every 2
Mark Derricutt wrote:
Can the guice stuff be merged in cleanly independent of aether?
Yes, see patch at http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-4749.
There are no interdependencies between Aether and the
Plexus-Guice-Bridge. The Git branch I mentioned earlier aggregates them
for the sole
Hi there,
As for Guice, I think that what JVZ said does stands: a very few people does
understand how big and complex that work was (and is, since it is ongoing).
Stuart did a real magic, with just a drop in replacement for
Plexus-components backed by Guice. But don't stop there. With his
OK, I am going to round off my view on the topic.
Guice integration: +1
Aether integration: +0.99 _for now_... let's suck it and see... if it
works well and the interaction between the two code bases works well, then
all is good.
There is a generic issue when we have volunteers and paid for
A thing I forgot to add yesterday :
For me Maven is a success because of its fundamentals (rules/guidelines) which
allowed to created a large large variety of services with plugins.
The value of Maven is many many more in its plugins than in its core (I don't
want to reduce the work done on
Having worked with Aether yesterday in some test code, and after
sleeping on it last night, I'll withdraw my objections for now.
This looks like a good way forward in terms of code. I'm still concerned
about volatility in terms of writing plugins that need to resolve X or Y
artifact at
Hi all
Some very important questions have been asked regarding Jason's
proposal. I usually let my first impressions sink in a bit before I
reply. That often help to make my comments more about the facts and less
about the feelings, and we've seen a lot of feelings in this thread.
The first thing
The first thing I would like to happen is that we release 3.0-beta-2
*without* merging the proposed code. There are two reasons for this.
Lets stage them both, I don't see any harm in having them back to
back, it certainly could help isolate any regressions.
Ok,
Thus talking is good but doing is better ( I know I'm talking more than I'm
doing :-) )
Could we have a consensus if we :
- release now the trunk as a beta 2 without Guice and Aether. With that we'll
have a solid base to compare future changes with. We know it is stable and it
is
+1 on releasing beta-2 followed -very quickly- with beta-3 inc guice/aether
(like days apart). Tho I wonder if it might confuse people - but then, if
you're playing with beta's you're probably following these threads anyway ).
Mark
--
Pull me down under...
2010/8/6 Arnaud Héritier
yes the goal will be to do more communications on beta-3 than beta-2 to let a
maximum number of users trying it.
If they have any issues due to Ather or Guice we'll be able to ask them to come
back to beta 2 the time we fix issues and deploy the beta-4
On Aug 6, 2010, at 2:09 AM, Mark Derricutt
Arnaud,
I think your plan is sensible. I agree with what you and Dennis have said.
It allows the Maven community to move forward but also doesn't stop
development of the integration.
Paul
2010/8/5 Arnaud Héritier aherit...@gmail.com
Ok,
Thus talking is good but doing is better ( I know I'm
+1
Regards,
Hervé
Le vendredi 06 août 2010, Arnaud Héritier a écrit :
Ok,
Thus talking is good but doing is better ( I know I'm talking more than
I'm doing :-) )
Could we have a consensus if we :
- release now the trunk as a beta 2 without Guice and Aether. With that
we'll have
+1
On 8/5/10 8:04 PM, Arnaud Héritier wrote:
Ok,
Thus talking is good but doing is better ( I know I'm talking more than I'm
doing :-) )
Could we have a consensus if we :
- release now the trunk as a beta 2 without Guice and Aether. With that
we'll have a solid base to compare
+1
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
I am torn on this as Brett clearly is.
I haven't contributed much code in quite a while. The reasons are simple. Maven
2 is stable but has serious issues that can't be fixed without breaking
compatibility. Maven 3 has been under development for years with parts being
ripped out and redone
On 4 August 2010 08:06, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com wrote:
I am torn on this as Brett clearly is.
I haven't contributed much code in quite a while. The reasons are simple.
Maven 2 is stable but has serious issues that can't be fixed without
breaking compatibility. Maven 3 has been
2010/8/4 Stephen Connolly stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com:
I share concerns with respect to where the code is hosted. I recognise that
as Apache is a meritocracy, there is a barrier for other developers getting
involved. The Hudson model of You want commit access, here you go is a
tad too
I have always had concerns about plexus being pretty much only adopted by
Maven as far as I can see, and essentially being a maven core component,
except it isn't
+1
Guice allready as its own large community of users and maintainers.
It's a general 'purpose' API.
Aether is new,
+1 : agree on having aether in asf too.
2010/8/4 Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com:
I am torn on this as Brett clearly is.
I haven't contributed much code in quite a while. The reasons are simple.
Maven 2 is stable but has serious issues that can't be fixed without
breaking
If anyone wants to -1 then you are free to do so.
I've given my reasoning for Aether not being here, I won't go on ad nauseum.
I'll leave it to the objectors to come up with a timeline for deciding. There's
no rush.
On Aug 4, 2010, at 5:03 AM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
+1 : agree on having aether
On Aug 4, 2010, at 4:00 AM, Stephen Connolly wrote:
On 4 August 2010 08:06, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com wrote:
I am torn on this as Brett clearly is.
I haven't contributed much code in quite a while. The reasons are simple.
Maven 2 is stable but has serious issues that can't
We can also all pop into IRC if you want a more productive, real-time
discussion. Also happy to host a call. Might as well get everything aired out
sooner rather then later.
On Aug 4, 2010, at 7:35 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
On Aug 4, 2010, at 4:00 AM, Stephen Connolly wrote:
On 4 August
I was saying that I see Guice as being different than Aether... the
plexus-guice shim though I see as being separate from Guice.
I also said that I recognise that the bar for egtting committer access at
apache is probably a little too high for something like Aether.
And, unlike others, I was
My experience is that a high barrier to committ access actually makes life
harder for committers. I have commit access to Maven but not to plexus
sometimes when working on Maven Plugins I've found I need to do something in
plexus to resolve an issue, and I've hit the wall because I have to
Although I am not a committer at Maven, I also share the sentiment that
Maven 3's external development hinders community development at Apache. It's
difficult to know where things are going -- and usually I feel the direction
is wholly controlled by Sonatype. I have no problems with commercial
2010/8/4 Stephen Connolly stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com:
If Aether has commit access for all Maven committers automatically, (and I'm
not saying it doesn't) then a large part of my concerns can be removed... I
recognise the p2 stuff as being a separate concern from the m2 repo
stuff and
On Aug 4, 2010, at 8:37 AM, Stephen Connolly wrote:
My experience is that a high barrier to committ access actually makes life
harder for committers. I have commit access to Maven but not to plexus
sometimes when working on Maven Plugins I've found I need to do something in
plexus to
On 4 August 2010 13:42, Henri Gomez henri.go...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/8/4 Stephen Connolly stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com:
If Aether has commit access for all Maven committers automatically, (and
I'm
not saying it doesn't) then a large part of my concerns can be removed...
I
recognise
I don't see any veto here.
Perso, I like this change (at least/especially the plexus-guice stuff).
Concerning the other part, I didn't work enough and don't have enough
time to work on this part of the project to have a clear idea.
As I haven't seen vote here , I push my +1.
And IMHO, earlier
On 4 August 2010 13:55, Jason van Zyl ja...@sonatype.com wrote:
On Aug 4, 2010, at 8:37 AM, Stephen Connolly wrote:
My experience is that a high barrier to committ access actually makes
life
harder for committers. I have commit access to Maven but not to
plexus
sometimes when
1 - 100 of 124 matches
Mail list logo
