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 21:07:35 GMT
Jason van Zyl wrote:
> On Sat, 2003-11-08 at 05:09, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> Ok, I read what you said and we'll chalk it up to miscommunication and a
> misunderstanding. I am admittedly obstinate and can be unflexible, I
> never meant the level of animosity to grow to the point that it did. I
> sincerely apologize.

I sincerely appreciate it, thanks.

>>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.
> We definitely made those decisions and I think you have to look at what
> the outcome was. 

Maven has made a big result, though I doubt that it has been because of 
how it's implemented, rather because of what it enables users to do. If 
the descriptor would had been the Gump one instead, I really don't think 
it would have changed the outcome, nor if Ant had been used instead.

But this is my personal opinion, and this is the path I followed, 
although with less perseverance and dedication than you. Your efforts in 
Maven have been and still are outstanding.

> Anyone can search through all
> the Apache archives and see that I made no huge lobbying effort to shove
> Maven down anyone's throat. I even asked that Jon Steven's cease and
> desist when hailed Maven as the grand replacement on Jakarta.

Again AFAIK this is correct. From what I have seen and perceived, your 
position has never been about pushing things down others' throats.

>>But please leave me the possibility to have a different opinion on this 
>>way of doing things.
> It is often that I have noted to people that Maven is not the solution
> for them. Lot's of folks on the Maven list have been met with my
> responses to find a more suitable tool for their task. I have in fact
> pointed them at Ant and Centipede.

What I meant is not about implementation, but about doing things 
collaboratively rather than in competition.

>>>>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.
> I think we have, which is definitely a good thing.


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