On Aug 4, 2010, at 11:54 AM, John Casey wrote: >>> >>> >>> Having a stable set of specifications define their interaction with Maven >>> would make plugin development and embedding MUCH better. In fact, I think >>> establishing this practice might be the single best contribution we can >>> make to Maven in the near term. >>> > > All due respect, but that dodges the question of separating and standardizing > the API from the implementation. It also dodges the discussion about who sets > the design of the repository format and the API spec used to access it. >
To me that's sounds like a bunch of busy work without much value. It works, and it's going to evolve by having people use it. The ultimate API will never be arrived at without lots of integrators. That's how everything evolves. > You're asking the Maven community to give up one of its greatest creations - > the repository format that has become a de facto standard - and become > completely dependent on a project whose future may be uncertain. It's easy to > talk about companies as these fixtures in the market, but the fact is we're > talking about giving complete control over the Maven repository API / format > to a start-up. I can't make you, or anyone else, do anything you don't want to do. Vote against it, implement your own library, I'm not putting a gun to your head. I've done what I feel is best, I've laid out what I think is best. You can disagree and take action accordingly. > Start-ups are not known for their stability. Then, the company in control > _may_ decide (unilaterally) to move the whole shebang to Eclipse. There's > absolutely no role for Maven developers in this model, unless they go out and > re-establish their merit on a new project. > First, the code is ASL so if we rolled over tomorrow then take it. That's really not a problem. Second, yes we created it so if we want to take it to Eclipse we can do that. People who do the work get to make choices like that. Eclipse is solid place to do OSS work. I'm tired of the endless debates about infrastructure, release process, using git, and I honestly think Aether not being here is the best thing for getting others involved. > I'm not talking about the merit to contribute implementation details - though > the ASF concept of non-expiring merit argues strongly against losing access > to that. What I'm talking about is the right to contribute to the design of > the repository format, API, and SPI (now that I notice that's separate from > the API). The language we use to share artifacts and metadata should not be > under the sole control of a private entity. That honestly has nothing to do with where the code is. If we shut everyone out, we'd just be shooting ourselves in the face and ruin any reputation we have of being meaningful contributors to the Maven ecosystem. That doesn't do Sonatype any good. The argument that the only place that can be done is simply not true. > > Sure, there haven't been too many contributors to Maven 3. But how much of > that has to do with the velocity of work done and paid for by Sonatype, It has a great deal to do with that. No one can keep up with full-time people but that doesn't mean contributions should fall off to zero which is what's pretty much happened. Kristian and Olivier being the exceptions. > the dramatic and repeated shift in direction by those paid contributions > (mercury for example), That was not a dramatic shift at all. We attempted to make an artifact resolution API and the first attempt failed. No shift, a second more successful attempt. > the need to chase code from SVN to GitHub, to still other GitHub > repositories, and the lack of discussion of the design of any of it? It was not developed here, you do not have to accept it. I posit we would have been in endless debate, no one would have contributed and we'd be in the same boat. My conjecture possibly, but no different then your view which is also conjecture. The fact is right now we have a working library and a way forward. Anyone here who feels I'm limited their choice can blame themselves for not participating previously. Yes, I felt it would be more expedient to just do it because this project needs to get on the rails again and I believe this is one of the critical steps. Aether was implemented in a very short period of time. There's code there, it works and now people can provide feedback. I honestly feel that works better. Yes I told some people about it and not others and that was purely a judgement I made based on what people have been contributing lately. That's why I didn't develop here because that mode of operation is looked dimly upon here so I didn't do it here. And I want the velocity to continue, and that just is not going to happen here based on my cumulative experience of over 10 years here. I wanted to try something different and this is the result. You may not like it, you don't have to agree, but you can't make me do what you feel is right. > > It makes me uneasy to see how much this has become a skunkworks type of > project, where much of the development takes place behind closed doors and > then gets dumped on the Maven community. You're entitled to your point of view. I'm interested at this point in the efficacy of execution and the survival of the project. Not whether everyone has the warm fuzzies. Apart from the Maven 1.x to Maven 2.x I've tried not to fuck users and doing so now wouldn't serve my commercial or non-commercial efforts. > > Maven contributors established the foundational concepts (and code, from what > I can tell) for Aether; Aether is a refactoring of that essential design and > format. If you expect Maven to use Aether, then the Maven community deserves > some say in the future of the format and API. That's my opinion. > Just because the code base is not here does not stop you from participating. I think that's just something you're going to have to reconcile yourself to. I believe the code needs a chance to live outside these walls. And Aether is a very different design, sure it borrows things from all over the place including here but it's definitely not a refactoring. There isn't just the Apache Way and nothing else. As I've stated before Maven 3.0 is an effort at backward compatibility with a way forward. We have not gone and secretly and radically changed Maven and dropped Maven 4 in your laps. We made a library, yes an important one, but it's a library nonetheless. I've said that all new features developed in the core and that's not going to change. And guess what? There are no new features and we've basically be doing the shit work of writing tests for 2 years that no one has helped with. We made Aether and made it compatible, turfed Plexus to be more sensitive to users being confronted with my one-off IoC and made it work with all existing code. I don't think anyone understands how much work that was. The project would never move forward and it would be in a "good enough" state which would leave it to be trampled by the competition. I'm just not going to let that happen. Some work like what we've done is just never going to happen here, and it's definitely not going to happen without millions of dollars of concerted effort. Which is where Sonatype is at this point. I love that I've been fortunate enough to provide the work that's been done. It was the exact same thing with Maven 2.x. If I hadn't start Mergere do you think Maven 2.x would exist? I honestly doubt it. I try to balance what I think is necessary, and what I can reasonably do at Apache and when what I think needs to be done falls outside of those parameters I opt out instead of trying to force my opinions on everyone here. There are things I believe work best here, like when we start discussion outward facing features for Maven 3.1. I don't think that can happen any place but here with a lot of discussion as painful as I think that's going to be this is the right place to do that. For the bits that are really, really hard require dedicated people, talking on the phone 5 times a day and pretty much every other violation of what would be considered the Apache Way. Every commercial company involved here probably does lots of things like we do but they don't attempt to contribute it back. I don't want a disparity in my working life where the OSS stuff I work on is good enough and then I have to build around it to make something great on the commercial side. I want Maven to be great and this is how I approach it. I'm doing what I think is best for Maven users. If you disagree I'm not going to fault you, and I encourage you to do what you think is right. I wouldn't ask anything less of anyone involved here. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 --------------------------------------------------------- happiness is like a butterfly: the more you chase it, the more it will elude you, but if you turn your attention to other things, it will come and sit softly on your shoulder ... -- Thoreau
