Re: Hudson and frameworks reference
Re: Hudson and frameworks reference
- Subject: Re: Hudson and frameworks reference
- From: Mike Schrag <email@hidden>
- Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2011 10:19:18 -0500
> On 15/01/2011, at 2:12 PM, Mike Schrag wrote:
>
>> I'm all for Q's approach, too. For me, Ivy is the part of Maven that isn't so bad. You get the dependency management without all the other stuff on top.
>
> And, of course, you can interpret 'all the other stuff on top' in one of two ways:
> a) negatively, which seems to be the way this particular community keeps the myth going that it'll be too much pain. (Perhaps certain people have a hang-over from maven 1?).
> b) positively, as meaning all the additional benefits maven provides and with less pain overall.
and of course you can present the two possible interpretations as
a) a myth
b) you're right
or
a) my personal experience
b) you're wrong
it's all a matter of perspective ;)
more seriously, though -- you just have to try it out for yourself and see if you like it. i don't. it's not an objective judgement of maven, it's a subjective judgement of maven.
ms _______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden