I hope I get this right
Jason here states that there should only be one central
And yes we can ONLY have ONE central. And this is the ONE we got
today !!!!
That must be the game we are playing.
The community must be able to TRUST maven / central.
Starting changing this could cause doubt, and a very easy attach zone
for competitors...
When this is stated....
We must acknowledge we got problems !!!
The central is full of legacy, some artifacts that even might not
work, moved etc.
Here the solution can be to add deprecation lists or better component-
qualtiy-attributes (an xml file next to a component)
To speak clear: pom.xml xx.jar xxx.war ... is read-only.
But a component-quality-attribute.xml file can be maintained, and
updated.
The quality attributes can be like:
deprecated false / true .. when true + a description
runs-JVM-1.5 true/ (false + description / problem reference )
runs-JVM-1.6 true/ (false + description / problem reference )
runs-JVM-1.7 true/ (false + description / problem reference )
runs-JVM-1.8 when this becomes relevant
is-moved (no) or path to new location
osgi-compliant true / false
ivy-enabled true /false
groovy-enabled
maven-2 enabled true / false ... most of our maven-2 artifacts
should hopefully have true here :-)
maven-3 enabled (soon..)
maven-4 enabled (when this becomes relevant)
various PMD level compliant
I here by tries to state that we cannot predict the future.
What today seens perfect, might tomorrow be less usable.
With such attributes users can select the artifacts matching their
demands.
I am not sure a point system from 1..10 will match the requirements.
Best regards
Anders Kristian Andersen
On 26/09/2009, at 21.15, Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 2009-09-26, at 10:58 AM, Albert Kurucz wrote:
Very nice idea to measure the quality.
But sorry Tamas, 50% corrupt or 90% corrupt does not make a
difference for me.
Especially not, when I have feeling that it is possible to maintain a
100% clean repo with the right automation tools.
If Sonatype's goal is to sell these tools only for paying customers I
don't have a bad feeling about that. Everyone has to make a living.
But I hope sometime similar tools and a clean repo will be available
for the open public.
I hope OSS developers will recognize the need for quality (and a high
quality repo).
Not having a super high quality central repository actually makes
our commercial efforts a lot harder. If I was devious I would have
agreed with Brett and would make a completely clean central
repository as our plans require intact repositories. But we don't
have a clean repository and trying to make a separate one would be a
disaster for general use. You have to live with what's there and
Sonatype will actually invest in cleaning up the generally available
repository. We already have with efforts like this:
http://nexus.sonatype.org/oss-repository-hosting.html
It would actually cost us more in support with our clients to
maintain a dirty Maven Central and a clean Maven Central with the
confusion, interoperability problems and general issues of potential
distrust it just makes no business sense. Now the information we
want to add is of enormous value but it's predicated on generally
improving the quality of Maven Central. I don't want Sonatype to be
known as the company that stole Maven Central, doesn't do us any
good. So trying to sequester improved metadata somewhere is
pointless. If the base information is not good, then the whole
system is crippled and that screws Sonatype as well as everyone else.
So the information in Maven Central on a per-project basis I see
increasing greatly with some tools that Sonatype is developing in
Nexus and M2Eclipse and this will benefit all Maven users generally.
I'm certainly going to leverage that improved information, but so
can anyone else.
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Hervé BOUTEMY <[email protected]
> wrote:
Le samedi 26 septembre 2009, Tamás Cservenák a écrit :
I think we all need some clarification, since we all talk about
"quality"
(we all agreed upon the basic things unanimously).
What is the "quality" of a maven repository (in general)? Can we
measure
it? Can we define it?
A wiki page with piled up (even personal) opinions would be good --
don't hesitate to start one on MAVENUSER Wiki [1]
whatever they are -- and later we should cherry-pick the most
relevant ones
to build some tooling to build these metric. And then, we could
"measure"
the quality of different reposes (like central) and have a list
of reposes
that do meet certain "level of quality" and list publicly the
others that
does not.
[1] http://docs.codehaus.org/display/MAVENUSER/Home
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
Thanks,
Jason
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder, Apache Maven
http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
----------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
