incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nicola Ken Barozzi <>
Subject Re: [Possible Incubation] Apache Repo
Date Fri, 07 Nov 2003 17:16:43 GMT
peter royal wrote:
> On Nov 7, 2003, at 11:29 AM, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>> The developers of Ruper in the meantime have become Apache committers 
>> (two for Gump and one is coming in with JUDDI). The issue here is that 
>> Maven already has some code for this, and 
>> is partecipating too.
>> If you want to call it "Incubating Ruper and have others join" it's ok 
>> for me, as my initial idea is to use Ruper as a starting codebase, and 
>> have others add stuff, but I didn't want to make this a prerequisite 
>> for a Repo project.
> The initial email wasn't clear about what codebases would be part of 
> this initiative.
> So if Ruper is the codebase that would be attached, the initiative 
> should be re-titled as you suggest.
> This really smells like an extension and abstraction of what Maven 
> provides and initiated. Why not do this effort under their umbrella?

There is no need to be provocative, Peter.

The Krysalis jar repository effort started well before we ever knew of 
the Maven one, by using Jakarta Commons JJAR. Actually the Maven one had 
not even stared at that time.)

There have been multiple requests from us to merge efforts, but to no 
avail. In the end, to reduce duplication, we decided to follow the Maven 
repo layout, but since at that time Maven was in such a flux, and we are 
using Ant, we did our own tool, Ruper. Since then Ruper has grown, and 
Krysalis now has Ruper2 and Version, which are much more advanced.

I don't see why would an indipendent and cross-project repository effort 
and library have to be under Maven.

Nicola Ken Barozzi         
             - verba volant, scripta manent -
    (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message