I'd just like to add that although Maven encourages convention over configuration etc etc, it will by no means by itself ensure that you get good build "scripts" (poms aren't scripts, but I think you know what I mean). I've seen so many weird/strange/bad/fascinating solutions incorporated into customers' Maven builds. Possibly, it is a problem that too many people think that Maven by itself will give you good standard builds that they don't worry about having just about anyone go hack the poms.
/Anders On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 7:45 PM, Graham Leggett <minf...@sharp.fm> wrote: > On 11 Sep 2012, at 7:22 PM, Curtis Rueden wrote: > >>> Just let a few juniors touch the build and you are doomed pretty quickly. >> >> I agree, and would generalize this statement to any build system I've ever >> designed or worked with: shell scripts, Makefiles, Ant, Maven... it doesn't >> matter. A build is a very finicky thing, especially for medium-to-large >> projects, and increasingly so as it adds gravy to the build process. > > A finicky build is a symptom of poor design, and if your design is poor no > tool, unit test, CI, package, strategy or methodology is going to compensate > for it. Discipline is the art of knowing why not to do something, and is a > difficult thing to teach. > > There is a tremendous amount of waste that is perpetrated in software > engineering, software is built to be disposable, with very short shelf lives. > Maven challenges this trend by encouraging convention, repeatability, and > code longevity, and this is a very good thing. > > Regards, > Graham > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@maven.apache.org
