+1 Emmanuel
John Casey wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, As I'm sure most of you are aware, we have shipped all of the Maven 2 releases so far with support for a scripting language called Marmalade. This language was meant to replace Jelly, and provide a bridge for those developers with custom Jelly-based plugins to migrate onto M2. As the user interest in M2 soars, I see very few people trying to use Marmalade. It seems that the language is still too immature, and the runtime model of M2 is just too different for a Jelly-compatible mojo language to be useful. Actually, those of you who keep close tabs on the users list will undoubtedly notice that Marmalade is in fact causing a negative net effect on M2 uptake. I believe it is the only mojo development documentation we've published for M2, and that document no longer produces a working example, because the latest changes to the mojo descriptor API have broken the descriptor metadata in Marmalade. I'm the sole developer on the Marmalade project currently, and I haven't had too many people asking about it. While I'm still interested in it, I have to say that I'm not sure when I'll be able to give it the attention it deserves WRT integrating proper Ant support. And that's to say nothing of the integration hooks for supporting Marmalade mojos in M2. Therefore, I suggest that we remove all official support of Marmalade as a M2 mojo language, and let the Marmalade project take it over. We should remove the mojo development guide that is Marmalade oriented, and stop mentioning it as a viable option for mojo development. At the same time, I'm going to be working (in the next week or so) on Ant-based mojo support, which will effectively replace Marmalade for 99% of the use cases I've heard. Marmalade will still be available as a mojo language, we just won't be supporting it from this project...and maintenance of this integration will happen on a very different timescale. So, I'm putting this up for a vote. I'll leave it open for 72 hours (not that I think we need it), and reassess then. In this case, abstention signals assent. If you don't veto, I'll simply remove it. [] +1 - strongly support removal [] +0 - support removal in principle [] -0 - oppose removal in principle [] -1 - strongly oppose removal Here's my +1 for removal. Thanks, John -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDMfFmK3h2CZwO/4URAkYwAKCbB/dV6QTm/M5igrF2pYG+DlNW/gCdFGkA 7Rb0jzyvktB6J6uofJKPIl4= =nW// -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]
