your frustration is real as you're asking the same question as I that is "will it work?" I remember one situation where I could'nt get a plugin downloaded ..there was some network problem introduced by someone downstream finally to get the project built I had to fallback to Ant build.xml to build the war There is hope for this project as long as we all stay on constructive positive track and continue to address the issues on priority basis
Thanks Jason ----- Original Message ----- Wrom: ZFSQHYUCDDJBLVLMHAALPTCXLYRWTQTIP To: "Maven Users List" <users@maven.apache.org> Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 7:28 PM Subject: Re: surefire and testng integration issues with surefire-2.4.2 > > On 20-Mar-08, at 3:39 PM, Jason Chaffee wrote: > > > Jason van Zyl, > > > > First, let me apologize for the tone of my emails and to anyone I > > offended. > > I doubt you offended anyone. We're used to it. I sit with clients most > days so I'm fully aware of what's wrong and know people are frustrated. > > > That was never my intent. I let my frustration, and the fact > > that I am on morphine (from a motorcycle accident) get the best of my > > diplomatic writing skills. :) > > > > We have thick skins, it's not a problem really. I don't get upset and > I don't think anyone else did either. > > > I would like to add that my wording may stem from the frustration I > > see > > everyday. I have been the strongest advocate for maven at my > > company so > > when people have maven problems, I typically take the blame and it > > does > > cause my performance reviews to be affected because people feel like > > my > > advocating of maven has hindered their ability to effectively do their > > jobs due to time spent debugging maven instead of our code. > > This absolutely can happen, but it is almost always a certain set of > conditions which exacerbate an adoption of Maven. I'm always > interested in collecting the stories, and 9 times out of 10 it's the > same set of conditions which result in a failure to adopt Maven. We do > have many success stories as well, but no one really talks much about > that. > > > I am going to say this and I don't want anyone to take it personally > > or > > think of it as an attack, in case it comes across that way, that is > > not > > my intention. > > > > I didn't take it that way. Just pointing out a more practical way to > get your problem solved. > > > I work in an open environment where I can see and hear just > > about everything that is said by our developers. Daily, I hear > > people > > cursing maven and making statements such as "I hate maven", etc. > > It reminds me of the many Windows rants you used to hear in the > > work place on a regular basis due to Windows freezing or the > > blue screen of death. > > > > Again, I would be interested in knowing under what conditions you have > made your developers use Maven. What conditions they first had to use > Maven under, did anyone actually show them how it's supposed to work > first, etc. If you made them try to convert and Ant build as their > first project then that almost always results in failure. > > > I have done my best to defend and even improve maven both for my > > company > > and the community. At some point though, I have look up and say, "why > > am I seeing they same type of problems on an ongoing basis?" Things > > breaking in new versions, things not being fixed for more than a year > > despite clamoring for it by the community, etc. That is the place > > from > > which my email stemmed, because I am bombarded daily about maven > > complaints. > > > > I am too in given environments. I have lots of clients who have > problem, some of which never get passed the assessment phase. But we > do have more cases where things worked given it was introduced > correctly, people saw it coming and it wasn't shoved down developers' > throats and didn't just expect it to be a replacement for a procedural > system. > > > I was careful not to call out anyone individually because I feel > > everyone does do a good job and works hard. I just felt it was time > > for > > some "harsh criticism" to make it back to the group for a couple of > > reasons 1) awareness, it can't be corrected if there isn't awareness > > and > > 2) I think sometimes that making people aware of things in this way, > > it > > can provide a so called wake-up call. > > I get harsh criticism all the time, it's not like I'm sitting at home > working on this stuff. I am almost always with clients and I get the > story about plugins, repository managers, eclipse integration, the > release plugin, weirdness with snapshots, documentation and whatever > else. I don't think there is anyone more acutely aware of the > potential problems. > > > > > > > I appreciate everyone that has worked on maven and I am still a > > supporter. I just want people to be aware that that there is a ground > > swell out there that considers maven to be a "build tool from hell", > > this a quote I have heard from managers within my company. > > I've heard that about every build system I have ever encountered. So > that's not terribly surprising and you'll see that even diatribes like > Howard's on InfoQ results in an equal number of people not having > problems and liking it. > > > Also, I > > mentioned ASF not because Maven makes ASF bad or vice versa, but when > > one project starts gathering a ground swell, it can make the parent > > (ASF) look bad simply based on association. This has been the case at > > least with a couple of people in my company and again, I have to > > defend > > it. > > Not sure how many people you have actually talked to in order to > arrive at "ground swell" but the dissatisfied generally make more > noise. I'm not discounting your problems, and I would actually like to > know what they are really, but I have seen many happy users, and I > have many happy clients. I also doubt any intelligent person will > throw the baby out with the bath water in assume that one bad project > here makes a bad organization. > > > > > > > While it may appear that I am attacking maven and/or ASF, I am really > > trying to inform you of what I am seeing out in the "real world" and I > > do think the negative views are becoming harder and harder to > > debunk, at > > least that is what I am experiencing. > > > > I too am in the "real world" on a daily basis, and really the most > severe problem we have is documentation as people tend to go down > rabbit holes. In this regard Tim O'Brien is working pretty hard to > create a free book to keep people from going down the rat holes. I am > also setting a small grid which start a week ago with Hudson running > on a machine to start running CI more consistently and this will also > help. There's also been a ton of work in Archetype, Eclipse > integration, and we're about to release 2.0.9. Dan also did a ton of > work on Surefire and it is most certainly better. Yes there were a > couple gotchas but he poured a lot of time over Surefire and closed > out a huge number of issues. So we're not sitting on our laurels. > > > So, I hope that this dialogue will only help the Maven team think of > > these things as they make decisions because sometimes doing > > something in > > only a slightly different manner or communicating in a slightly > > different manner can change the perception and thus remove some of the > > negative thoughts people currently have about maven. > > > > That's a fair assessment, and the truth is the majority of the things > we do we don't communicate well. As shown by our website which > honestly doesn't leave many with a great impression. So I can only > agree with you there. > > > I apologize for not writing something like this in the first place and > > instead writing something that seems to be laced with venom. > > > > I wouldn't characterize your initial email as laced with venom. It was > just if you were looking for a technical answer and we were just > pointing out how to get one. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jason van Zyl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 12:10 PM > > To: Maven Users List > > Subject: Re: surefire and testng integration issues with > > surefire-2.4.2 > > > > > > On 20-Mar-08, at 10:47 AM, Jason Chaffee wrote: > > > >> I am simply glad that it got someone's attention and I feel that in > >> no > >> way was the tone of that email blasting anyone, it was informing the > >> maven community of the perception that is developing around maven and > >> ASF in the java community and our frustration. I did not call out > >> any > >> one person individually nor did I attack anyone. Perhaps this is > >> part > >> of the problem, the over sensitive response when people do provide > >> critical feedback. It feels like there is an instant defense > >> mechanism > >> and it just leads fosters the perceptions and frustrations I > >> mentioned > >> previously. > >> > > > > Reacting to you floating the notion that the whole project lacks > > quality while siting your specific problem with Surefire I believe is > > justified. Brian was only making a counter to your implied assertion > > that we're not doing anything to improve the quality of the project. > > > > So I would agree that it's not an overt blasting, but it was a subtle > > tactic to illicit a response to your particular problem. Brian simply > > pointing out that it's not appreciated using an argument of community > > discontent to get attention. JIRA, patches, and siting the problem at > > hand will also work. > > > >> I have been defending maven for a long time, I just have reached a > >> point > >> that I feel enough is enough. If you have to continue to defend > >> something for what some people perceive as the same mistakes over and > >> over again, it is time to speak up. > >> > > > > Sure, but the first visible entry point for a dialog should be trying > > to work with developers like Dan to work through the problem. Not use > > your argument to gain an entry point to the discussion -- though this > > seemed to work for you. > > > >> Anyway, I will refrain from speaking up again as "I feel" like it > >> isn't > >> worth the trouble. > >> > > > > If an exchange of a few emails with Brian where he is trying to show a > > better path to get solutions make you feel like it's not worth > > communicating further then I would say the overreaction is more on > > your part. You made reasonable requests, albeit laden with assertions > > irrelevant to getting a solution, and Brian made reasonable responses. > > It also looks like people are trying to help you sort out your issues > > on the dev list. So don't give up so easily, I think you'll get where > > you want get. > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Brian E. Fox [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 10:30 AM > >> To: Maven Users List > >> Subject: RE: surefire and testng integration issues with > >> surefire-2.4.2 > >> > >> In the meantime, perhaps a Jira would be good so we don't lose the > >> time > >> you invested so far. > >> > >> FYI: We are working hard to stabilize the Maven 2.0.x branch by > >> increasing the test coverage and IT coverage. We rely on volunteer > >> effort to help fix these things as they come up. We appreciate the > >> effort you put in here but blasting the team about instability > >> doesn't > >> really help solve anything. We know there are issues and want to fix > >> them, it's not like we enjoy volunteering to intentionally make > >> something that annoys you. I've recently done polls to find out the > >> pain > >> points for people upgrading and we are addressing those in 2.0.9 and > >> 2.0.10. Hopefully we will start to see some gains in the next > >> releases. > >> > >> As far as TestNG support goes, this is still new and I think the > >> users > >> are in the minority, so I guess I'm not really surprised that it's > >> not > >> perfect yet. > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Jason Chaffee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 1:17 PM > >> To: Maven Users List > >> Subject: RE: surefire and testng integration issues with > >> surefire-2.4.2 > >> > >> I will look into creating something as soon as I have time to make > >> sure > >> it is well tested. > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Brian E. Fox [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 10:11 AM > >> To: Maven Users List > >> Subject: RE: surefire and testng integration issues with > >> surefire-2.4.2 > >> > >> We are listening. Can you make a patch for surefire? > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Jason Chaffee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 12:57 PM > >> To: Maven Developers List; Maven Users List > >> Subject: RE: surefire and testng integration issues with > >> surefire-2.4.2 > >> > >> Yeah, I have no problem writing my own. However, if this is to be > >> expected of TestNG users to get similar output as previous versions > >> of > >> surefire, then it should be WELL documented as such. > >> > >> My issue is that the behavior changed between surefire versions. > >> This > >> caused all kinds of confusion for developers at my company, they > >> needed > >> the latest version of testng to support some functionality, but they > >> had > >> to use the latest surefire to use the latest testng and all of a > >> sudden > >> the output completely disappeared. The frustrating part is the maven > >> developers who worked on surefire claimed it was because of the way > >> testng worked and that there was nothing they could do about it. > >> With > >> very little effort, by reading the TestNG JavaDoc and looking at the > >> surefire code to see that they simply didn't implement the methods > >> that > >> would have kept the behavior the same. > >> > >> This frustrates me and everyone at my company to no end. Slowly, but > >> surely Maven and the ASF are being looked at as software lacking in > >> quality, both within my company and in the Java community as well, as > >> top respected people in the community (who shall remain nameless in > >> this > >> post) "rant" about the errors with maven implementation quite often > >> and > >> speak about how the concept is good, but the implementation has been > >> anything but good and this leads to other conclusions about the way > >> ASF > >> and the Maven project are being run as a whole. > >> > >> This is most unfortunate. > >> > >> This has turn into a "rant" from me, but I think it is worthwhile to > >> have the maven developers hear critical feedback from time to tome. > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: P'Simer, Dana (Matrix) [mailto:Dana.P'[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 6:39 AM > >> To: Maven Users List; Maven Developers List > >> Subject: RE: surefire and testng integration issues with > >> surefire-2.4.2 > >> > >> I have recently been dealing with a similar issue. I wanted Junit > >> style > >> reports and did not want to use ant run to run the JunitConverter > >> task, > >> so I added reportng as a test scoped dependency and configured a > >> listener. > >> > >> As an interim solution, you could write a listener that does what you > >> want. It could just be in your src/test/java dir as classes there > >> will > >> be available to TestNG when it is running so there is no need to > >> create > >> a separate jar, unless you want to. To configure it you would do > >> something like this: > >> > >> ... > >> <plugin> > >> <artifactId>maven-surefire-plugin</artifactId> > >> ... > >> <configuration> > >> ... > >> <properties> > >> <name>listener</name> > >> <value>x.y.z.MyNiftyProgressOutputter</value> > >> </properties> > >> ... > >> </configuration> > >> ... > >> </plugin> > >> ... > >> > >> The listener properties's value can be a comma separated list of > >> classes > >> so if you have more than one, you can do that. > >> > >> Good Luck, > >> > >> Dana H. P'Simer > >> Dana.P'[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Jason Chaffee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 5:32 AM > >> To: Maven Developers List > >> Cc: Maven Users List > >> Subject: surefire and testng integration issues with surefire-2.4.2 > >> > >> I brought this up in the past the maven guys were adamant that they > >> were > >> not able to get per test information to output on the console unless > >> testng changed. I felt all along that this was not correct and I > >> finally had a chance to look into it. Surefire could simply > >> register a > >> listener to get call backs during the execution and could output the > >> results. TestNG does support this functionality with the > >> ITestListener. > >> For example, onStart() will give the start of running a particular > >> class > >> configuration and test methods and onFinish() will be called after > >> all > >> of the configuration and test methods have been run. I took a look > >> at > >> the Surefire code and there is a TestNGReporter that does implement > >> the > >> ITestListener, but it does not implement these methods, they are all > >> no-ops. So, it seems like these could be implemented and then we > >> could > >> see progress output on the console. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > > > > Thanks, > > > > Jason > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Jason van Zyl > > Founder, Apache Maven > > jason at sonatype dot com > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > > We know what we are, but know not what we may be. > > > > -- Shakespeare > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Thanks, > > Jason > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Jason van Zyl > Founder, Apache Maven > jason at sonatype dot com > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Our achievements speak for themselves. What we have to keep track > of are our failures, discouragements and doubts. We tend to forget > the past difficulties, the many false starts, and the painful > groping. We see our past achievements as the end result of a > clean forward thrust, and our present difficulties as > signs of decline and decay. > > -- Eric Hoffer, Reflections on the Human Condition > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
