On Monday, Sep 29, 2003, at 10:10 Europe/Rome, Morrison, John wrote:
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:Antonio Gallardo wrote: ...I think it is better to save our efforts by using any of the projects related to this tasks. The idea, is to have a better project management with less effort than we currently have with Ant. Is that right?
Correct.
I strongly think that moving to Maven now will be a major and unnecessary disruption in our development process, and I don't want to see it.
As I said, it's quite easy to have almost all that Maven provides by using other stuff.
What do we want from Maven?
1 - jar downloads: use Ruper or Ant <get> 2 - generic targets? Heck, we already have them. 3 - what else? Don't tell me activity reports, because it's an Ant task that Maven simply uses.
Let's not go into a massive build-system change that will make it even harder to sense what's happening, and lay out what we need.
NOTE: I'm the original Centipede author, so yes, I'm definately baised
I have to be +0 on either. I'm not really active atm (and, from the look of work around here, won't be for quite some time).
However, I do like the fact that Centipede plays (IMNSHO) nice with GUMP when Maven didn't. I also remember that during the creation of Maven it almost ripped the GUMP team apart. I'm sorry, I probably should have gotten over that. But hey, I'm only human.
Just my 2p.
For the record, if I were to set this sort of thing up at work, I'd go the Centipede route. I *know* any issues that arise would be solved either by the folks over there or by Ken.
BTW, wasn't Centipede going to be moved under the Apache umbrella?
Looking at this with a different mindset, I would like to point out that this "maven vs. centipede" 'querrelle' is harming us more than it is helping us.
I personally see no reason to change the build system, but if somebody volunteers to get remove stuff from our build and delegate the job to others, well, I'm all about avoiding reinventing wheels, so +1
At the same time, the Maven vs. Centipede debate is a human one, technology is something that can easily be changed, personal feelings aren't. There is friction between the people behind Maven and the people behind Centipede.
This is also the reason, I believe, while Maven integration with Forrest is so weak: the maven community associates, transivitely, forrest with Centipede. So it stays away from it.
I think we should make an effort to get out of this silly 'impasse' and move on.
[why am I using so many french terms today?]
I'm -1 on Centipede for the following reasons:
1) it would progress the fracture between Maven and Forrest.
2) it would increase the friction, might give the centipede people feelings like "we should be an asf project too, so that the competition is fair", increase the friction even more, waste some of our energy in incubation, would force us to follow a moving target
3) lack of integration with Gump wouldn't hurt since it's going to be painful anyway to integrate gump with our real blocks (centipede nor maven support debian-style virtual modules, AFAIK)
I know very little about Maven and Centipede, yet I've seen the flames go by. This sucks.
We care about Forrest, we care about Gump. If Maven does good things but lacks a few, we should use it *exactly* for that: so that we can improve it, build synergies, instead of wasting energies in progressing a competition.
These are my two cents, anyway.
-- Stefano.
