> of the state of the project is that it should not be in beta, the
> quality is more like that of an alpha-status project.
I have read enough to understand what the Maven team are trying to achieve, and I believe it to be a Very Worthy Goal. I'm a keen believer, but not yet a full practitioner.
Unfortunately, back in March(?) when I first tried it out, it was definitely alpha-quality software. The only reason I say that, is that the APIs and structure were changing quite dramatically between releases (b8->b9). Maven was a moving target, and some of the breakages really hurt. Beta software should be structurally complete, just with bugs.
Having said that, my biggest problem by a large margin was that our build process was already so convoluted, and our project structure so haphazard, that it just didn't fit into maven. If we had been using maven from the start...
Gulli, I'm hoping that your day spent on maven will have opened your eyes to quite a few things about the drawbacks to your existing project handling. At least, you may realise the advantages once you see ten developers lose an hour or so whenever a dependency change is made, or your test team finds basic bugs because the test suite isn't up to date.
Once maven is fully-fledged, I envisage a future where we can spend more time on coding, and less on fixing the build.
Matt
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
