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 Sat, 08 Nov 2003 10:09:12 GMT
Jason van Zyl wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-11-07 at 12:16, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>>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.)
> I am not trying to stir the pot here, but you really can't make
> statements that are purely conjecture and not be held accountable. It's
> simply not fair to insinuate there is validity in your efforts simply
> because you think you started first.

Jason, I have read this mail, and I can say that finally this is the 
time to get things straight and finish all this miscommunication nonsense.

First of all, I don't think I started first. I don't even care who 
started first, as I believe that who thinks that others steal his ideas 
has little ideas to start with ;-)

> It doesn't matter who started first because different implementations
> are not a bad thing, but please Nicola get your facts straight. You used
> JJAR for your first implementation, yes? Then I'm not sure how it has
> come to pass that you don't know that JJAR was written as a direct
> result of my discussions with Geir and it was for the express purpose of
> using a repository of JARs and I didn't see you on the scene anywhere
> for quite some time after it's creation. Maven started in Alexandria and
> moved to Turbine which is where most people think it started.

Yup, I am aware of the above and AFAIK I can confirm that it's correct.

What I want to say is that at that time, we were not aware of this, and 
not aware of your Maven plans. All we could see is a JJAR project on 
Commons. This is in reply to Peter Royal's insinuation that we copied a 
feature of Maven instead of collaborating.

> Using a repository isn't a revelation, the idea has been in existence
> long before either of us came around. 


> But that's not my point, the point
> is it neither matters who was first (because there's probably someone
> who tried this long before either of our efforts if we actually looked)
> and using that as a reason for the existence of a codebase is a
> pointless one. 


> If you have another implementation of something akin to
> what Maven does then that's completely fine but let it stand on its
> merit and stop pointing your fingers at Maven. 

I'm not trying to point my fingers at Maven. If it comes out like this, 
it's unintentional, and please accept my apologies.

> If you want to incubate Ruper then say so. That's perfectly valid. It is
> also perfectly valid to have a competitor to aspects of the
> functionality of Maven. I have no problem with that, but stop calling it
> a grand community effort while intoning that Maven is devoid of a
> community persuing these same things that you are talking about in
> addition to dismissing the Maven developers a close minded bunch because
> we chose a path (i.e. not merging with your effort) that we considered
> was in Maven's best interest. 

Again, I'm not trying to do this, sorry if it seems so. On I have tried to be clear on this, but because of 
past incomprehensions it's hard.

>>There have been multiple requests from us to merge efforts, but to no 
> You have cited this reason many, many times but what you originally
> asked for was entirely unreasonable. You asked for an entire merger of
> codebases and developers which the Maven committers were not prepared to
> accept. It was posed essentially as an ultimatum which stated that a
> flat out merger was the only acceptable solution. You decided not to
> participate and the situation was made worse when essentially implied
> the Maven developers were a bunch of thieves or more specifically that I
> took your idea and ran with it.

I never said that you took my idea, and never posed an ultimatum.

What I did see was massive duplication of efforts in Apache and 
elsewhere that I did not want to accept.

There is Gump, why POM?
There is Ant, why Jelly?
There is Centipede cents, why Maven plugins?

Simply that was the decision of the Maven developers, ok.
But please leave me the possibility to have a different opinion on this 
way of doing things.

>>I don't see why would an indipendent and cross-project repository effort 
>>and library have to be under Maven.
> It certainly doesn't but you also can't ignore what Maven has done for
> the notion of a repository.

Of course.

> In any case I think that if you wish to incubate Ruper then I am +1.

Thanks. I hope that the results will be so good that Maven will be 
compelled to use it. I also hope that Maven developers will participate 
in the project.

Jason, thanks for your fair and clear comments. I hope that this can put 
  an end to our incomprehensions about what happened.

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