So, where are we collecting all of this information? I'm digging up some
of the proposals that I wrote up in the past couple years, some of which
I've already implemented on trunk (and IIRC all of which have been
floated on this list).
A lot of these things already exist, they just need to be collected for
posterity, then we need to find a way that they will be able to survive
the next convulsion of reorganization.
Starting with:
http://docs.codehaus.org/display/MAVEN/Deterministic+Lifecycle+Planning
-john
Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 7-Aug-08, at 9:21 AM, Brett Porter wrote:
On 08/08/2008, at 1:04 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
We should be focusing on the release candidate in the short term.
Of course.
As far as 2.1 discussions so productive discussion will happen 1)
unless people have the necessary background, and 2) are given enough
time to prepare.
That's why I suggested it 4 days early, but that's fine.
Not long enough for people working during the day and probably have
plans for the given week at the beginning of the week. Pretty normal.
I'm not really sure what background you think "people" are missing?
I just saw your commit that lists some 8 things to do before
discussing anything. That is back to front, first of all.
There are discussions on the mailing list and IRC all the time, but
these are for people who have been doing work in the core or
sub-systems. To bring in anyone cold, to get them involved they need
some background if you are going to expose something more then what the
POM might look like or how it would work from a user perspective. No one
is stalled on a grand unified document. The document I'm trying to
create is an attempt to bring in people outside our normal realm. No one
from the outside would possibly have a clue what's happened. I bet most
folks here on the list haven't kept track of a slew of organic changes.
I want to capture them to see if they are really needed, whether cull
the, change them. Anyone here can easily find out what's happened by
asking. A lot of people on the dev list or the user list would have no
chance and that document is the only semi-comprehensive place to start.
What I'm trying to capture in that document are some of the reasons
changes were made, what drove some work to be done. Why the embedder was
created, by maven-artifact is a dead-end, why the model of execution
needs to be known upfront and separated from the execution, why we need
separated execution environments for different versions of APIs. I think
these are useful for people to know if they are actually going to dig in
and help.
If you want to know something specifically or work on something
specifically then bring it up. Start with something concrete. I do want
something more unified, a play book as it were. I'll put a draft of that
document in the wiki later tonight, and I think you need to give people
a clear week to setup a group call or IRC discussion and some plan of
what we would talk about or the conversation will just degrade and be
ineffectual.
But that doesn't mean you can't ask someone in IRC or on the mailing
list about something specific.
Jason
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder, Apache Maven
jason at sonatype dot com
----------------------------------------------------------
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]
--
John Casey
Developer, PMC Member - Apache Maven (http://maven.apache.org)
Blog: http://www.ejlife.net/blogs/buildchimp/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
