Jason here states that there should only be one central
And yes we can ONLY have ONE central. And this is the ONE we got
today
!!!!
That must be the game we are playing.
The community must be able to TRUST maven / central.
Starting changing this could cause doubt, and a very easy attach
zone for
competitors...
When this is stated....
We must acknowledge we got problems !!!
The central is full of legacy, some artifacts that even might not
work,
moved etc.
Here the solution can be to add deprecation lists or better
component-qualtiy-attributes (an xml file next to a component)
To speak clear: pom.xml xx.jar xxx.war ... is read-only.
But a component-quality-attribute.xml file can be maintained, and
updated.
The quality attributes can be like:
deprecated false / true .. when true + a description
runs-JVM-1.5 true/ (false + description / problem reference )
runs-JVM-1.6 true/ (false + description / problem
reference )
runs-JVM-1.7 true/ (false + description / problem reference )
runs-JVM-1.8 when this becomes relevant
is-moved (no) or path to new location
osgi-compliant true / false
ivy-enabled true /false
groovy-enabled
maven-2 enabled true / false ... most of our maven-2
artifacts
should hopefully have true here :-)
maven-3 enabled (soon..)
maven-4 enabled (when this becomes relevant)
various PMD level compliant
I here by tries to state that we cannot predict the future.
What today seens perfect, might tomorrow be less usable.
With such attributes users can select the artifacts matching their
demands.
I am not sure a point system from 1..10 will match the
requirements.
Best regards
Anders Kristian Andersen
On 26/09/2009, at 21.15, Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 2009-09-26, at 10:58 AM, Albert Kurucz wrote:
Very nice idea to measure the quality.
But sorry Tamas, 50% corrupt or 90% corrupt does not make a
difference
for me.
Especially not, when I have feeling that it is possible to
maintain a
100% clean repo with the right automation tools.
If Sonatype's goal is to sell these tools only for paying
customers I
don't have a bad feeling about that. Everyone has to make a
living.
But I hope sometime similar tools and a clean repo will be
available
for the open public.
I hope OSS developers will recognize the need for quality (and
a high
quality repo).
Not having a super high quality central repository actually
makes our
commercial efforts a lot harder. If I was devious I would have
agreed
with
Brett and would make a completely clean central repository as
our plans
require intact repositories. But we don't have a clean
repository and
trying
to make a separate one would be a disaster for general use. You
have to
live
with what's there and Sonatype will actually invest in cleaning
up the
generally available repository. We already have with efforts
like this:
http://nexus.sonatype.org/oss-repository-hosting.html
It would actually cost us more in support with our clients to
maintain a
dirty Maven Central and a clean Maven Central with the confusion,
interoperability problems and general issues of potential
distrust it
just
makes no business sense. Now the information we want to add is of
enormous
value but it's predicated on generally improving the quality of
Maven
Central. I don't want Sonatype to be known as the company that
stole
Maven
Central, doesn't do us any good. So trying to sequester improved
metadata
somewhere is pointless. If the base information is not good,
then the
whole
system is crippled and that screws Sonatype as well as everyone
else.
So the information in Maven Central on a per-project basis I see
increasing greatly with some tools that Sonatype is developing
in Nexus
and
M2Eclipse and this will benefit all Maven users generally. I'm
certainly
going to leverage that improved information, but so can anyone
else.
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Hervé BOUTEMY <herve.bout...@free.fr
wrote:
Le samedi 26 septembre 2009, Tamás Cservenák a écrit :
I think we all need some clarification, since we all talk about
"quality"
(we all agreed upon the basic things unanimously).
What is the "quality" of a maven repository (in general)? Can
we
measure
it? Can we define it?
A wiki page with piled up (even personal) opinions would be
good --
don't hesitate to start one on MAVENUSER Wiki [1]
whatever they are -- and later we should cherry-pick the most
relevant
ones
to build some tooling to build these metric. And then, we could
"measure"
the quality of different reposes (like central) and have a
list of
reposes
that do meet certain "level of quality" and list publicly the
others
that
does not.
[1] http://docs.codehaus.org/display/MAVENUSER/Home
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@maven.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@maven.apache.org
Thanks,
Jason
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder, Apache Maven
http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
----------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@maven.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@maven.apache.org
