*sigh* Saw this pop up in a google alert today. I've no intent of jumping into your list and trolling, but I thought it would be fair to be able to clear this up (at least from my PoV, though I admit to not being omnipresent). I welcome responses either at the IAM newsgroup or by personal email too.
Jason van Zyl-2 wrote: > > > q4e was forked from our codebase, it's not our project that created a > second faction. > As Erle mentioned, this is not true - it started from scratch. > It's purely political, all the technical reasons given > in the q4e proposal are bogus. It's not like we can't create > extensions points, or whatever other nonsense they have in that > proposal. > It was both political and technical. Political, because Jason at the time flat out refused to allow the project to be donated to the Eclipse Foundation for reasons I didn't believe to be valid, and this has since been proven to be the case. To Eugene's credit, he was happy to work on the project at either location. Now from where I sat, the technical issues looked valid. We certainly would have worked them out with a proper discussion and I'm sure if we revisited today it'd be a no-brainer. But I believe they are now just philosophical differences between the two projects. There is nothing wrong with that. > The development of q4e was driven by Mergere/Devzuz when I > left that company and they no longer had access to this project. The > code they submitted just wasn't very good which is why we never > accepted it. It's as simple as that. > I don't believe that's true. Eugene was very open to talking about the patches, but was blocked by the embedder problems at the time. In fact, I think some of the patches have since been applied. DevZuz had a choice to use the m2eclipse codebase (of which it still owns a portion of the IP), or start again. The latter made the most sense overall. That was my call at the time, and my attitude was that both projects should continue and either the best one wins, or we eventually converge again. I believe it was the right call to make because there'd have been little technical progress in the environment at the time, and because q4e's existence has not only been successful in it's own right, but spurred m2eclipse on to start releasing again. Everybody wins. > We're not trying to leverage > the Eclipse brand to promote our work prematurely, and use that as a > driver to bring people to use our code. We are actually trying to make > good code first. > The decision to make the Eclipse IAM proposal came at Eclipse Summit this year when Carlos and I saw that there was support there to still have Maven integration developed at Eclipse. From a project standpoint, I'll fully admit to leveraging the connection to Eclipse - not as a brand, but in the interest it has sparked in the project which will hopefully bring other users and developers to the project. I believe it is the right thing to do. That's more important to me than the code itself, though q4e is certainly working on having good code too, and thus far the users seem happy with it. Anyway... speaking of the code, maybe we should all get back to that now? :) Cheers, Brett -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Official-Eclipse-Support-for-Maven-2-tp14379879s177p14426966.html Sent from the Maven Eclipse - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list please visit: http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
