On Mon, 2003-12-08 at 19:52, Brett Porter wrote: > > Yah, I wasn't aware that was going to occur. I didn't find > > the explanation clear at all or I would have said something. > > Probably best to say something if it wasn't clear :) Do you mind editing > http://wiki.codehaus.org/maven/MavenCvs to make it clearer?
I don't read the wiki and really don't consider a development aid. I try to look at it but I forget and find it a generally repulsive form of project documentation. http://maven.apache.org/roadmap.html Is more what I'm akin to but I can try to give the wiki another whirl. > > You should not have destabalized what was in HEAD with your > > changes until you were sure all was cool which means not > > disabling the touchstone. > > I had to do something, because we were blocking any further development > happening post-1.0 which is not good (Vincent's changes for the POM). That doesn't mean merging your changes into the 1.0 branch. All that needed to be done was the branch swap in order for Vincent continue is it not? > The > only alternative we had at the time was to do what I did, release with the > leak as 1.0, or stop anyone else from doing core development. I think the > right choice was made. I don't think it's an unreasonable proposition to hold off on a merge if it requires the disabling of the touchstone. > I haven't destabilised HEAD, so the future there is still secure. What is on > the branch is not experimental code. It has some bugs, but it can build > itself (except for the simian and checkstyle plugins - but at the time it > wasn't attempting this with the old bootstrap). Listen, I could build my branch with itself (and pass the toucstone) but deferred to Dion's wish that it be reverted because he couldn't generate the site with some of the plugins. Wherever you think you are, you are currently in the same boat. I didn't push my code into HEAD until asked to by Dion and let him take it out when he wasn't happy. > Once the bugs are fixed, > this is code that will be the release. I hope it is as I'm 100% for sooner rather than later. > > Please try to be more clear next > > time, maybe others weren't confused but I certainly am. > > I'm not intentionally unclear, so I need to be pulled up when something > doesn't make sense :) > > > We'll truck along with that intent. If we're still here two > > weeks from now we most likely will not be in agreement. > > I'm happy with that. Fair enough then, we'll leave it at that for a couple weeks. > - Brett -- jvz. Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://tambora.zenplex.org In short, man creates for himself a new religion of a rational and technical order to justify his work and to be justified in it. -- Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
