I don't know what he complains about. True sometimes the repository quality sucks but just submit a patch and it usually take 3 to 4 days until the problem is solves. Really I don't want to seem arrogant but I haven't had those kind of troubles.
On 6/30/06, Mike Perham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"I'll spare you the details on that one" This does nothing to solve the problem. We can't fix what we don't know about. The quality of the repository metadata has always struck me as something that will make or break the long-term success of Maven. We can only document it as best as possible - it's up to the module owner to provide a quality POM. Maybe we need a much harsher line around the quality of accepted POMs. Perhaps we can have a rule that every dependency MUST have a declared <scope> and <optional> element so that we know the developer has thought about the correct values for them, rather than always using the defaults? > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Torsten Curdt > Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 12:06 PM > To: Maven Developers List > Subject: Fwd: [RANT] This Maven thing is killing us.... > > FYI > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Bertrand Delacretaz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Jun 30, 2006 5:58 PM > Subject: [RANT] This Maven thing is killing us.... > To: [email protected] > > > Hi gang, > > It's Friday, I'm tired and a bit depressed after losing about two more > hours unsuccessfully trying to add OJB to the dependencies of the > bricks-archetype example I'm working on (would have needed all of six > minutes to do this with our old ant build). > > I'll spare you the details on that one, but I think each of us present > at the ApacheCon EU Hackathon has lost several hours this week > fighting with Maven (or rather Maven repositories) problems instead of > doing useful progress. > > From what I understand now, it seems like most people using Maven in > their companies have their own local repositories, which they take > care to keep in good shape. > > But using public repositories seems to bring us more problems than > Maven should solve, especially because Cocoon integrates many > libraries from the ASF and from other places, and there are many ways > in which dependencies can be broken apparently. > > I'm sorry that I have nothing to suggest at this point (except going > back to ant, but it's probably a lot of work). > > The main thing is that I'm afraid our users will go away if they are > confronted with the same problems than many of us had this week trying > to catch up with 2.2. The collective time wasted on this is huge and > it hides all the good things that are in 2.2. > > Suggestions are welcome I guess. > > -Bertrand > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
