Gary, you obviously did not read my message carefully. Please read one more time. You will find out, that I did not call Maven's position ridiculous *at all*, but on the contrary agreed with it, calling it a totally valid statement.
What I called and am still calling ridiculous, is the wrong reason given for that valid statement. Karl Heinz basically said: "We do not have a timeline, because we are an OSS project." But the latter is not a valid reason. A project can be an OSS project and have a loose or even a very strict timeline. I even gave examples. Another project can be OSS or commerial in nature, but not have a timeline. There is no causal relationship between the "OSS yes/no" property of a project and its "timeline yes/no" property. It is an individual decision each single OSS project makes independently for its own reasons - or rather, the reasons of its constituent team members. Those team members are human beings, have daytime jobs, private obligations and interests. They are free in their decisions, how much time they want to dedicate to the OSS project. This is to be respected and not to be ridiculed in any way. But again, ... >>> We are an open source project. We don't have a release timeline. ... is not sound reasoning. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I take the liberty to call it ridiculous. Not the fact as such, just the reason given. Clear enough for you now, too? Regards -- Alexander Kriegisch https://scrum-master.de Gary Gregory schrieb am 19.12.2023 19:59 (GMT +07:00): > As a fly on the wall here, not a dev, I think a kinder view would > reinterpret Maven's position not as "ridiculous" but rather > "down-priority", as in "we are busy, we like fixing bugs, adding features, > and scheduling things is not as important, otherwise this would turn into a > real job ;-)" > > Gary > > On Tue, Dec 19, 2023, 12:20 AM Alexander Kriegisch <alexan...@kriegisch.name> > wrote: > >> Karl Heinz, >> >> my thoughts on your reply: >> >> > Maven 4.0.0 will be there when it's there. >> >> This is a totally valid statement, if this is the policy in the Apache >> Maven project. No objections at all. >> >> But: >> >> > We are an open source project. We don't have a release timeline. >> >> That is suboptimal response, to say it politely. OpenJDK and Eclipse IDE >> with dozens of simultaneously released components have release cycles >> for 6 (OpenJDK) and 3 (Eclipse SimRel) months with defined dates for >> certain phases like milestones, release candidates, general availability >> dates. I.e., you can say "Maven does not have a release timeline", fine. >> But giving the reason that you do not have one because Maven is OSS, is, >> with all due respect, just ridiculous. >> >> Regards >> -- >> Alexander Kriegisch >> https://scrum-master.de >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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
