Jason, behaviour != implementation !
If someone likes to store his artifacts in a database or taking it from a p4,
why not?
And actually having a much cleaner interface on our side would be highly
welcome!
LieGrue,
strub
--- On Sat, 7/30/11, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> From: Jason van Zyl
> Su
On Jul 30, 2011, at 7:14 PM, Mark Derricutt wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I wanted to start this discussion completely separate from any of the other,
> rather heated ASL vs EPL discussions around Aether to try and keep this more
> on topic.
>
> For awhile we ( members of the Illegal Argument podcast )
On 31/07/2011, at 11:14 AM, Mark Derricutt wrote:
> I imagine a difficulty in that this would have to occur early in the
> bootstrap process of maven, but if this were the case, would we not be able
> to work a solution to not only the Aether inclusion issues, but also Kasun's
> Gentoo resolut
Hi all,
I wanted to start this discussion completely separate from any of the other,
rather heated ASL vs EPL discussions around Aether to try and keep this more on
topic.
For awhile we ( members of the Illegal Argument podcast ) have often discussed
a desire to have a pluggable dependency res
Ok, I'll pick up from Ralph's discussion.
On Jul 29, 2011, at 1:16 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
> -0
>
> I don't like it, but I'm not the one doing the work. I'd accept it if there's
> no better way to get the problems fixed for whoever is working to fix them. I
> don't think it's good to get stuck
I would suggest you re-read Brett's last email as to why we continue to have
this discussion. He seems to be able to word things a bit better than me.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 30, 2011, at 11:14 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>>
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
That's fine, but who ensures us that you wont change your mind again?
But fair enough, it will be much better at Eclipse than somewhere in the wild.
LieGrue,
strub
--- On Sat, 7/30/11, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> From: Jason van Zyl
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] incorporate EPL Aether
> To: "Maven Devel
> This one is just inaccurate. The interfaces on the Maven side are
> close to 100% backward compatibility with the existing APIs.
Hum, 323 aether imports for the maven-core module alone doesn't sound
non-intrusive. Thats almost 15% of all imports (2930)!
LieGrue,
strub
--- On Sat, 7/30/11, Jas
On Jul 30, 2011, at 5:14 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>>
>> It is not for legal reasons. The policy is that we cannot fork software
>> whose copyright owners do not wish us to do so.
>>
>
> So then you can't fork any version of Aether. So why are we continuing this
> discussion? Be a committer o
On Jul 30, 2011, at 5:08 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
> See below
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jul 30, 2011, at 10:33 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jul 30, 2011, at 4:16 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>
>>> See below.
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Jul 30, 2011, at 9:39 AM, Jason van Z
See below
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 30, 2011, at 10:33 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
> On Jul 30, 2011, at 4:16 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
>> See below.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Jul 30, 2011, at 9:39 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 30, 2011, at 2:52 PM, Ralph Goers wrote
On Jul 30, 2011, at 4:49 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> Many things changed within the ASF which made me extremely uncomfortable, and
> everyone is entitled to change their opinions and their decisions. It's not
> as if everything remained immutable on the ASF side. Yes, I changed my mind
> and de
Many things changed within the ASF which made me extremely uncomfortable, and
everyone is entitled to change their opinions and their decisions. It's not as
if everything remained immutable on the ASF side. Yes, I changed my mind and
decided Eclipse was the place I would like to do the majority
Jason, please stick to the facts. Here is what I found after reading through
the history in the private archives.
1.) the original artifact resolution mechanism was part of maven-core
2.) you wrote a new one which does certain things a bit better
3.) you told the Maven PMC that it will finally
On Jul 30, 2011, at 4:29 PM, Stephen Connolly wrote:
> Jason. please read my post carefully. i did not say you were a thief, i said
> there may be others who feel you are... i also said i do not agree with that
> point of view.
Sorry, I read it incorrectly.
>
> i will gladly accept your offer
On Jul 30, 2011, at 4:16 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
> See below.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jul 30, 2011, at 9:39 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jul 30, 2011, at 2:52 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>
>>> The dual license makes a difference because if someone wants to make a
>>> change that A
Jason. please read my post carefully. i did not say you were a thief, i said
there may be others who feel you are... i also said i do not agree with that
point of view.
i will gladly accept your offer to remove the merit wall.
i am just interested in making the code easy to develop and fix, for t
See below.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 30, 2011, at 9:39 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
> On Jul 30, 2011, at 2:52 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
>> The dual license makes a difference because if someone wants to make a
>> change that Aether doesn't want it can easily be incorporated here since the
>>
Kristian,
legal-discuss is a public list, with public archives. You can go read
these remarks for yourself in the archive. I apologize for assuming
that you or anyone else didn't know that. Yes I am a member, but Ralph
and I are not quoting any private crap.
Note that some Ralph posed a relativel
Le samedi 30 juillet 2011, John Casey a écrit :
> But, how can we keep it from leaking into plugins, when it's using the
> same plexus component system as the rest of Maven?
>
> This has long been a problem inside Maven, namely that we can't control
> _which_ components plugin devs have access to,
nice plan
the most important thing about 3.0 is that we shouldn't need to maintain 2
branches in parallel, which was a nightmare
With 3.0 out and the only branch to maintain, no doubt we can continue to
improve faster than previously
Regards,
Hervé
Le samedi 30 juillet 2011, Benson Margulies a
On Jul 30, 2011, at 2:52 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
> The dual license makes a difference because if someone wants to make a change
> that Aether doesn't want it can easily be incorporated here since the
> original class could be taken and modified as necessary.
Makes no difference. You could fork
lø., 30.07.2011 kl. 14.51 -0400, skrev Benson Margulies:
> Commits were made that caused Maven to depend on
> code outside of Apache. What's now clear is that this was a one-way
> street, *whatever the license on the code*, due to the policy
> requirement for voluntary contributions.
Techn
Please don't call me a thief. If you're talking about Aether and Sisu and my
decision to move those to Eclipse, they were never here and am responsible for
funding the vast majority of the code written in those projects. As such do I
not have the right to house those projects where I wish? At an
On Jul 30, 2011, at 11:58 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Ralph Goers
> wrote:
>> The dual license makes a difference because if someone wants to make a
>> change that Aether doesn't want it can easily be incorporated here since the
>> original class could be ta
Guys,
I don't know if it effects 3.0. It's a circular problem for me: you've
told me that 3.0-beta-3 isn't good enough even to publish internal
maven project sites, so I haven't been testing maven 3 on my day-job
code. All I've been praying for is a 2.4 that's compatible with 2.2.
But nothing real
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
> Actually, from the responses given to my question I'm sure the board would
> not look fondly on a fork at github either.
The board members' position in those emails is very critical of any
fork as the next step. What the board would say if a
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
> The dual license makes a difference because if someone wants to make a change
> that Aether doesn't want it can easily be incorporated here since the
> original class could be taken and modified as necessary.
Ralph, I'd like to really unders
Actually, from the responses given to my question I'm sure the board would not
look fondly on a fork at github either.
On Jul 30, 2011, at 10:28 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
> The board will not look fondly on Maven switching to a fork hosted at Apache
> Extras. However, I'm not sure what they woul
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
> I am aware the Maven never does schema checking but that it complains when
> processing the pom when it sees things that aren't part of the model. So if
> IIUC you are just taking advantage of a place that Maven isn't rigorous in
> its valid
The dual license makes a difference because if someone wants to make a change
that Aether doesn't want it can easily be incorporated here since the original
class could be taken and modified as necessary. We'd have to figure out how to
stitch those changes together, but from the guidance I got I
Stephen,
The problem we have here is that, under point (2), the horse has
already left the barn. Or, at least, we'd need to re-evolve from
Hyracotherium (Maven 2.2) back to Equus to really get rid of this
problem. Maybe the move to Eclipse will result in a more open and
equitable process of establ
Dennis Lundberg wrote:
Hi
Does MSITE-600 also affect maven-site-plugin version 3?
If so, can you please update that JIRA to also have the appropriate
"3.0" version as "Affects version".
I suppose it will affect 3.0 as well, the code is the same. However, it
was suggested to release 3.0 in a
1. are you seriously telling me that if acme corp were to fork aether, and
do a shed-load of work on it, resulting in a far better aether than the
eclipse hosted one and it was still epl licensed, that the board would view
that as a breach of policy? if the answer is yes, then this is a sad sad
wor
I also was just about to point out that the legal discuss thread indicated that
(b) and (c) are equivalent violations of apache policy.
Since jason/sonatype doesn't want this code at apache, and the board doesn't
want us forking it somewhere else to use it because jason/sonatype doesn't want
th
Can we create our own, new API that plugins should use for this? Eventually
all of Maven could use that instead of Aether directly.
Ralph
On Jul 30, 2011, at 10:25 AM, John Casey wrote:
> On 7/30/11 9:00 AM, Stephen Connolly wrote:
>> well it seems to me that we need to ensure that aether is n
The board will not look fondly on Maven switching to a fork hosted at Apache
Extras. However, I'm not sure what they would think about a github fork since
sonatype-aether is hosted there and that is precisely what github promotes.
Ralph
On Jul 30, 2011, at 9:50 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
> Th
On 7/30/11 9:00 AM, Stephen Connolly wrote:
well it seems to me that we need to ensure that aether is not leaking into
our public api. if it is entirely private from plugins, then i really don't
care if it is epl or dual...
I agree completely.
But, how can we keep it from leaking into plugins,
actually now the argument is that asf's processes are not rigorous enough!
seemingly some of sonatypes customers think the asf ip process is too
weak... but when i asked a certain person how the epl process was any
stronger, given that they take signatures on the cla's on trust and don't
verify the
The board made it pretty clear that option b is also highly discouraged so I
wouldn't list that as an option. The only viable path I see will be to
ultimately include the EPL version of Aether and then replace it with our own
code when someone decides there is something they want to do that req
I am aware the Maven never does schema checking but that it complains when
processing the pom when it sees things that aren't part of the model. So if
IIUC you are just taking advantage of a place that Maven isn't rigorous in its
validation. That would be fine.
Ralph
On Jul 30, 2011, at 4:29
The 'funny' thing is that I always hear the ranting about how complicated the
code handling at Apache. But then: it took them way over 2 years to get
m2eclipse cleared in Eclipse!
So their arguments against the ASF are just moot. It looks like it's nothing
more than a personal problem.
If we h
Hi
Does MSITE-600 also affect maven-site-plugin version 3?
If so, can you please update that JIRA to also have the appropriate
"3.0" version as "Affects version".
On 2011-07-30 17:32, Benson Margulies wrote:
> I'm not binding, but I'm sad about MSITE-600, which blocks my adoption
> at the day job
I'm not binding, but I'm sad about MSITE-600, which blocks my adoption
at the day job. So +0 not that it matters.
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We solved 46+1 issues:
> http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=11146&styleName=Html&version=168
Hi,
We solved 46+1 issues:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=11146&styleName=Html&version=16829
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=11761&styleName=Html&version=17501
There are still a couple of issues left in JIRA:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/I
well it seems to me that we need to ensure that aether is not leaking into
our public api. if it is entirely private from plugins, then i really don't
care if it is epl or dual... dual would be nicer, and truer to the original
plan whereby the code would be developed at github for speed, and then g
I'd like to to try to put a little oxygen into this thread now, given
the rather clear results of the vote thread.
Ralph posed the following question on Legal Discuss: 'Can the Maven
PMC pull a dual-licensed version of AEther back into Apache without a
grant from Sonatype?'
The answer was, "legal
I think that your understanding is oversimplified, with all due respect.
Yes, there is an xml schema emitted by modello. However, no, no
version of maven checks poms against a schema. So, it is possible to
make changes to the pom that are compatible with Maven 2, by the
expedient of testing that t
These jobs should use a custom repo. Trusting the built-in Jenkins
repo is not wise when testing maven. It's just a checkbox in the job
config.
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 6:09 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
> gav dropped it already (pinged him on IRC). Build #152 is currently running.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
gav dropped it already (pinged him on IRC). Build #152 is currently running.
LieGrue,
strub
--- On Sat, 7/30/11, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
> From: Dennis Lundberg
> Subject: Re: non-reproducible issues on CI
> To: "Maven Developers List"
> Date: Saturday, July 30, 2011, 9:55 AM
> On 2011-07-30 1
On 2011-07-30 10:54, Mark Struberg wrote:
> Might be if the metadata got downloaded but the artifact (a fat jar for
> example) didn't make it?
>
> I bet there are situations where such things still might end ugly.
>
> Just for the record: I'm currently looking at maven-repository-plugin
> Bun
Hi!
I'll try to reproduce it on the weekend.
LieGrue,
strub
--- On Sat, 7/30/11, Mark Derricutt wrote:
> From: Mark Derricutt
> Subject: Re: non-reproducible issues on CI
> To: "Maven Developers List"
> Date: Saturday, July 30, 2011, 8:54 AM
> I replied to the other thread saying
> it sounde
I'm in the same boat. I can't in good conscience vote -1 because I am in no
position to take on the task of doing a rewrite. OTOH, given the things people
have said they would really like to do I am pretty sure this issue is going to
keep coming up. For the same reasons as yours I'm going to ha
I replied to the other thread saying it sounded similar to MNG-5084 [1] - if
that sounds like it to you add your votes to the ticket.
[1] http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-5084
On 30/07/2011, at 8:31 PM, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
> I haven't reported it in JIRA yet because I don't have anything
i think I'm missing something. My understanding has been that any file named
pom.xml that isn't compliant with 4.0.0 is going to break Maven 2 users. Am I
misunderstanding something about what is being proposed?
Ralph
On Jul 29, 2011, at 8:04 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> I think Herve said so
Might be if the metadata got downloaded but the artifact (a fat jar for
example) didn't make it?
I bet there are situations where such things still might end ugly.
Just for the record: I'm currently looking at maven-repository-plugin
BundleCreateIT#createWithSCMInfoProvided().
It looks like t
Hi
I've seen this kind of error at my day job a couple of times. Although
I'm sure sure why they happen, I do know how to get rid of it.
You need to manually remove the offending artifact from the local repo
to get a freshly downloaded copy of it. By removing all versions of the
artifact, includi
Hi!
Thanks for the info.
I'll take the latest ALv2 licensed version of Aether and try to tinker a fix.
But this will only happen next week since I'm now off to the country with my
family.
LieGrue,
strub
--- On Sat, 7/30/11, Mark Derricutt wrote:
> From: Mark Derricutt
> Subject: Re: broken
Hi Martin!
Good idea basically.
But nope, both snapshots and releases are set to true.
LieGrue,
strub
--- On Sat, 7/30/11, Martin Gainty wrote:
> From: Martin Gainty
> Subject: RE: non-reproducible issues on CI
> To: dev@maven.apache.org
> Date: Saturday, July 30, 2011, 2:02 AM
>
> Mark-
>
This sounds VERY much like the problem Richard Vowles reported awhile back
which is solved by ungrading Maven to use Aether 1.12.
The problem lies in having some artifcts downloaded directly, some from a
mirror. Maven generates a metadata file which includes a references to the
upstream reposi
60 matches
Mail list logo
