> Your analysis is simply erroneous. We don't make changes > arbitrarily for the sake of making changes or to cause users > long-term grief. So far I think I've done all right in OSS > using similiar practices that I employ for Maven.
I agree. Maven is a wonderful piece of technology. > Velocity, Apache XmlRpc, OJB, BCEL are all and > haven't fallen prey to disuse yet. Nor has Maven. Sorry if I gave the impression that I thought it had. My point was only that I've seen projects disintegrate when they began to insist that the rest of the world conform to them _unnecessarily_. I think the basic issue I (and, I think, some of the other posters) have is that they don't see why fixing the target directory in place is _necessary_. What benefit does it provide to fix it in place? Why is that benefit worth more than the flexibility of the current system? > Again, I believe you are wrong and that given the benefits > users derive from Maven they will eventually start asking > makers of tools to accommodate Maven's methods of development. Some will. Some won't. That will cause pain (if Maven becomes less flexible) for those who want to use the systems that won't conform. My experience is that open source developers tend not to have to deal with such pain, so are overly unsympathetic towards it. I can agree to disagree here, though. > I don't feel compelled to defend my philosophy because it manifests > itself in Maven and you're obviously using it so you must > already agree to some extent. And I can see that you care because you're > arguing with me which I take as a compliment. I do care. The reason I am posting is that you appear to be on the verge of changing the philosophy used in Maven (i.e. replacing a currently flexible property with a rigid standard). Wordman --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
