I have a number of perspectives on this, and have taken the time
traveling over the last few days to reflect on this decision.
As a mentor, I can recognise the podling in its current form is not
working. Contributions, patches, and questions have gone largely
ignored this year, and development stalled after the migration to a
new trunk. For a long time we have assumed that a kick in that
direction was all that was needed to get it going again, but only
small steps have been taken. Something clearly needs to change.
I don't believe the move you've suggested will make visibility,
community involvement and a steady release schedule any more likely
than it is now - they simply require a conscious decision and group
effort to do so which could equally be achieved here.
My primary role in the project at the moment is as a user, distributor
and occasional developer. There are two reasons your proposal won't
satisfy our needs in that regard:
- we are committed to and required to maintain the code in an
independent environment
- we require integration with Archiva for the search and management
functionality
Do you have some alternative proposition here? I realise these may not
be your personal "itches", but there are no technical reasons they
can't be achieved by other community members that are interested in
doing so while other work continues in the areas you've described.
I personally agree with the overarching technical direction you've
described. In the long term, I see the .NET portions of this project
doing much of the work independently, and this is also consistent with
discussions I've had with others. However, Byldan hadn't seemed much
more than an experiment to date - could you elaborate on where you
think it stands to be able to provide a solution to Maven users today,
or what kind of effort is required to bring it to that point?
I would still urge you to reconsider and give a renewed effort here to
see what we can achieve by openly discussing the issues and roadmap
for everyone that is interested in this project and seeing what comes
of it.
However, if you don't believe that's feasible, I would be willing to
champion an effort to try again afresh - either by restarting the
podling (with Incubator and Maven PMC approval), or choosing a new
location, and then migrating the current codebase to something more
suitable with respect to any current users. Hopefully through regular
communication we could converge over time while being free to
experiment as needed.
Thanks,
Brett
On 14/11/2008, at 8:14 AM, Shane Isbell wrote:
> I'd like to let the general NMaven community know that we are
> dissolving
> NMaven from the Apache Incubator and will be moving the project to
> Sonatype
> Forge (
http://sonatype.org) over the next week. I can't speak for all
> members of the NMaven PPMC but my personal reasons are that after 2
> years in
> the incubator, we have failed to gain traction with the community. The
> community involvement was quite active while NMaven was at
> sourceforge,
> drying up very quickly after moving to ASF.
>
> Looking back, I think there were a number of reasons for this.
> First, I
> don't think the Apache brand name has as much appeal to the .NET
> crowd, so
> it was easy for us to get buried. Second, we tied NMaven to a Maven
> 2.1
> snapshot to support Visual Studio, and thus were stuck at a point
> where we
> couldn't do a release. Finally, I took a divergent path from Maven
> implementation, in part to solve problems with lack of toolchain
> support and
> versionless artifact file names, and this made it difficult for Maven
> developers to understand and to make contributions. The 0.15 release
> earlier
> in the year was designed to address these problems. Yet we still
> didn't gain
> much traction with the user or developer community, pointing to
> something
> more fundamental.
>
> Given these problems, I'd like to take NMaven to Sonatype Forge,
> giving it a
> fresh start, getting back visibility, community involvement and a
> steady
> release schedule. Now in regards to the future plans.
>
> A number of .NET developers I talked to said that they while they
> liked
> Maven and the concept of the Project Model, they didn't want to have
> to
> install Java and Maven on their systems to use it. And finding
> developers
> who know Maven, Java and .NET is not the easiest thing, so I'll be
> putting
> in some time into Byldan (
http://codeplex.com/byldan), a .NET
> version of
> Maven. I'm looking to port over the new 3.0 project builder code,
> so we can
> start bringing the Byldan project model inline with Maven's pom. We
> can
> build the plugins once in .NET and then execute them using either
> Byldan or
> NMaven. The unreleased version 0.14 has this .NET plugin support,
> but that
> code needs to be rewritten and/or cleaned up. We will need
> developers with
> experience in app loading and app domains.
>
> Another area I would like to focus on is the Visual Studio support.
> Eugene
> has done a lot of work with the m2eclipse plugin, using Lucene
> indexing of
> the the POMs for artifact searches, so I'm looking to create similar
> functionality using Lucene.NET.
>
> The final areas of focus are ones that we have been trying to solve
> from day
> one: properly handling versionless artifact file names and doing
> toolchain
> support, at both the client and server level. These problems are
> enormously
> difficult to do against the web based repositories, so I will be
> looking to
> integrate NMaven/Byldan with the Nexus Repo Manager Rest APIs, just
> pegging
> the technology so we can get things moving more quickly. This should
> also
> make things like PDB attached artifacts easier to handle.
>
> I'll be posting more transition information over the coming week.
> Feel free
> to shoot back with any questions or concerns.
>
> Thanks,
> Shane
--
Brett Porter
[hidden email]
http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
Locked
