You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@maven.apache.org by Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> on 2020/05/22 00:13:16 UTC
Re: [maven-site] branch master updated: few precisions
On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 16:43, <hb...@apache.org> wrote:
> This is an automated email from the ASF dual-hosted git repository.
>
> hboutemy pushed a commit to branch master
> in repository https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/maven-site.git
>
>
> The following commit(s) were added to refs/heads/master by this push:
> new 60bb862 few precisions
> 60bb862 is described below
>
> commit 60bb862225fd4b017c2cdd084a29ddafe0d1f641
> Author: Hervé Boutemy <hb...@apache.org>
> AuthorDate: Thu May 21 08:43:04 2020 +0200
>
> few precisions
> ---
> content/apt/developers/compatibility-plan.apt | 8 ++++----
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/content/apt/developers/compatibility-plan.apt
> b/content/apt/developers/compatibility-plan.apt
> index b370a31..17ed1c4 100644
> --- a/content/apt/developers/compatibility-plan.apt
> +++ b/content/apt/developers/compatibility-plan.apt
> @@ -44,11 +44,11 @@ Maven Compatibility Plan
>
> * Maven Plan
>
> - * Until ..., Maven 2.2.1 + Java 5 prerequisites, with plugins versions
> in 2.x
> + * Until 2012?, Maven 2.2.1 + Java 5 prerequisites, with plugins
> versions in 2.x
>
> - * Since ..., Maven 3.0 + Java 7 prerequisites, with plugins in 3.x
> + * Since 2012?, Maven 3.0 + Java 7 prerequisites, with plugins in 3.x
>
> - * Since ..., discussions on Maven 3.2.5? + Java 8 prerequisites
> + * discussions on Maven > 3.0.x (3.1 or 3.2 or 3.3? details still TDB) +
> Java 8 prerequisites
>
Don't be shy Hervé we can definitely says >= 3.3.9 (at least you will not
hear any objections from me :) )
>
> * Context
>
> @@ -56,7 +56,7 @@ Maven Compatibility Plan
>
> * JDK/JRE support dates:
>
> - * Java 5 is closed source, EOLed by binary providers on ...
> + * Java 5 is closed source, End of Public Update in 2009
>
> * Java 6 is Open Source, maintained at OpenJDK until ...
>
>
>
--
Olivier Lamy
http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
Re: next level of compatibility (was Re: [maven-site] branch master updated: few precisions)
Posted by Hervé BOUTEMY <he...@free.fr>.
Le mardi 26 mai 2020, 00:05:39 CEST Robert Scholte a écrit :
> I missed the proposal for the version. I saw 3.2.5 and that can't be
> correct, hence I tried to explain what the correct version should be. So
> correct minimum version will be one of: 3.0, 3.1.0, 3.2.1, 3.3.1, 3.5.0
> This is the version we should compile with, our integration tests use the
> latest bugfix for all.
>
> Just like the discussions around what the minimum Java version should be,
> the same counts for the minimum Maven version.
>
> What is the benefit for version X? (Keep in mind, that every individual
> plugin may choose a different minimum in case a specific change/feature is
> required) 3.1.0 is very clear to me: switch to eclipse aether (package
> change) and JSR330 support for plugins. All others contain (close to) no
> changes to the API, so there's no real gain.
>
> By using higher versions of Maven you might force people to upgrade Maven or
> stick to old plugins in case they can't upgrade. I don't think it should be
> our plugins to enforce a higher version of Maven. Hence I don't see any
> reason to require 3.5.0 or 3.6.0.
>
> I think it is pretty impressive that we can say that our plugins still
> support a wide range of Maven versions.
>
> So my vote will be 3.1.0
ok for me
Regards,
Hervé
>
> Robert
>
> On 25-5-2020 22:53:47, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
> @All
> Can we update the compatibility plan document saying we support from 3.5.4
> and 3.6.3.
> plugins will use API from 3.5.4 and can use java8 from now (June 2020) .
> As 3.7.0 is on his way (soon) supporting 3 series seems enough. (with 3.7.0
> using java8)
> @Robert
> As you didn't answer, I wonder if you still have strong opinions?
>
> On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 18:46, Michael Osipov wrote:
> > Am 2020-05-24 um 10:41 schrieb Olivier Lamy:
> > > On Sat, 23 May 2020 at 21:33, Robert Scholte
> >
> > wrote:
> > >> As discussed before: compatibility should either be 3.3.1 (since 3.3.0
> > >> didn't make it) or 3.5.0, we should not include the (highest) bugfix
> > >> version.
> > >
> > > Great this means we can can rid of this hackhish refection stuff for
> > > aether...
> > >
> > > you mean we should support 3.3.1 3.3.3 and 3.3.9?
> > > by support I mean fixing security issues.
> > > so in this case what happen in case of a security issue for 3.3.1 do we
> > > have a to release 3.3.1.1 3.3.3.1 3.3.9.1
> > > Not sure I understand what we mean with support?
> > > anyway if we say all plugins must be at least 3.3.1 it's good progress
> >
> > I think we have discussed this before as I have raised this at least
> > once this one. The upshot is that we try to support (in terms of API and
> > ABI) in Plugins and Components a huge variety of Maven versions, but
> > only the last stable minor branch of Maven receives fixes.
>
> --
> Olivier Lamy
> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: next level of compatibility (was Re: [maven-site] branch master
updated: few precisions)
Posted by Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org>.
On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 9:00 pm, Anders Hammar <an...@hammar.net> wrote:
> On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 8:37 AM Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 08:05, Robert Scholte <rf...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > I think it is pretty impressive that we can say that our plugins still
> > > support a wide range of Maven versions.
> > >
> > > So my vote will be 3.1.0
> > >
> >
> > even if it doesn't happen that much my only concern is what we will do in
> > case of security issue with 3.1.0 what versions will we have to fix?
> > by saying we support 3.1.0 we must be clear (and it seems obvious to me)
> we
> > will only release 3.1.2 in case of security issue (same with other 3.x.x
> > series)
> > but still this can be a lot to maintain/release etc... (well ok still in
> > the very rare case of security issue)
> >
>
> It looks like we're back att the confusion what we're talking about. There
> are two different aspects:
> 1. Minimum version for compatibility (in plugins)
> 2. What Maven version(s) do we support, i.e. provide (important) fixes for
>
> Two very different things IMO. If our plugins are compatible with Maven
> 3.1.0 that DOES NOT mean we will provide fixes for Maven 3.1.x. Most
> likely we will only provide (secuirty) fixes for the latest minor version
> (currently 3.6).
Yes it definitely makes sense and I have definitely missed a discussion
somewhere (sorry too much notifications spam :))
To avoid such confusion is it write somewhere? I’m happy if you can provide
a RTFM
> /Anders
>
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Robert
> > >
> > > On 25-5-2020 22:53:47, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > @All
> > > Can we update the compatibility plan document saying we support from
> > 3.5.4
> > > and 3.6.3.
> > > plugins will use API from 3.5.4 and can use java8 from now (June 2020)
> .
> > > As 3.7.0 is on his way (soon) supporting 3 series seems enough. (with
> > 3.7.0
> > > using java8)
> > > @Robert
> > > As you didn't answer, I wonder if you still have strong opinions?
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 18:46, Michael Osipov wrote:
> > >
> > > > Am 2020-05-24 um 10:41 schrieb Olivier Lamy:
> > > > > On Sat, 23 May 2020 at 21:33, Robert Scholte
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> As discussed before: compatibility should either be 3.3.1 (since
> > 3.3.0
> > > > >> didn't make it) or 3.5.0, we should not include the (highest)
> bugfix
> > > > >> version.
> > > > >>
> > > > > Great this means we can can rid of this hackhish refection stuff
> for
> > > > > aether...
> > > > >
> > > > > you mean we should support 3.3.1 3.3.3 and 3.3.9?
> > > > > by support I mean fixing security issues.
> > > > > so in this case what happen in case of a security issue for 3.3.1
> do
> > we
> > > > > have a to release 3.3.1.1 3.3.3.1 3.3.9.1
> > > > > Not sure I understand what we mean with support?
> > > > > anyway if we say all plugins must be at least 3.3.1 it's good
> > progress
> > > >
> > > > I think we have discussed this before as I have raised this at least
> > > > once this one. The upshot is that we try to support (in terms of API
> > and
> > > > ABI) in Plugins and Components a huge variety of Maven versions, but
> > > > only the last stable minor branch of Maven receives fixes.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Olivier Lamy
> > > http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Olivier Lamy
> > http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
> >
>
--
Olivier Lamy
http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
Re: next level of compatibility (was Re: [maven-site] branch master
updated: few precisions)
Posted by Anders Hammar <an...@hammar.net>.
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 8:37 AM Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 08:05, Robert Scholte <rf...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > I think it is pretty impressive that we can say that our plugins still
> > support a wide range of Maven versions.
> >
> > So my vote will be 3.1.0
> >
>
> even if it doesn't happen that much my only concern is what we will do in
> case of security issue with 3.1.0 what versions will we have to fix?
> by saying we support 3.1.0 we must be clear (and it seems obvious to me) we
> will only release 3.1.2 in case of security issue (same with other 3.x.x
> series)
> but still this can be a lot to maintain/release etc... (well ok still in
> the very rare case of security issue)
>
It looks like we're back att the confusion what we're talking about. There
are two different aspects:
1. Minimum version for compatibility (in plugins)
2. What Maven version(s) do we support, i.e. provide (important) fixes for
Two very different things IMO. If our plugins are compatible with Maven
3.1.0 that DOES NOT mean we will provide fixes for Maven 3.1.x. Most
likely we will only provide (secuirty) fixes for the latest minor version
(currently 3.6).
/Anders
>
>
> >
> > Robert
> >
> > On 25-5-2020 22:53:47, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
> > @All
> > Can we update the compatibility plan document saying we support from
> 3.5.4
> > and 3.6.3.
> > plugins will use API from 3.5.4 and can use java8 from now (June 2020) .
> > As 3.7.0 is on his way (soon) supporting 3 series seems enough. (with
> 3.7.0
> > using java8)
> > @Robert
> > As you didn't answer, I wonder if you still have strong opinions?
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 18:46, Michael Osipov wrote:
> >
> > > Am 2020-05-24 um 10:41 schrieb Olivier Lamy:
> > > > On Sat, 23 May 2020 at 21:33, Robert Scholte
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> As discussed before: compatibility should either be 3.3.1 (since
> 3.3.0
> > > >> didn't make it) or 3.5.0, we should not include the (highest) bugfix
> > > >> version.
> > > >>
> > > > Great this means we can can rid of this hackhish refection stuff for
> > > > aether...
> > > >
> > > > you mean we should support 3.3.1 3.3.3 and 3.3.9?
> > > > by support I mean fixing security issues.
> > > > so in this case what happen in case of a security issue for 3.3.1 do
> we
> > > > have a to release 3.3.1.1 3.3.3.1 3.3.9.1
> > > > Not sure I understand what we mean with support?
> > > > anyway if we say all plugins must be at least 3.3.1 it's good
> progress
> > >
> > > I think we have discussed this before as I have raised this at least
> > > once this one. The upshot is that we try to support (in terms of API
> and
> > > ABI) in Plugins and Components a huge variety of Maven versions, but
> > > only the last stable minor branch of Maven receives fixes.
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Olivier Lamy
> > http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
> >
>
>
> --
> Olivier Lamy
> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
>
Re: next level of compatibility (was Re: [maven-site] branch master
updated: few precisions)
Posted by Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org>.
On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 08:05, Robert Scholte <rf...@apache.org> wrote:
> I missed the proposal for the version. I saw 3.2.5 and that can't be
> correct, hence I tried to explain what the correct version should be.
> So correct minimum version will be one of: 3.0, 3.1.0, 3.2.1, 3.3.1, 3.5.0
> This is the version we should compile with, our integration tests use the
> latest bugfix for all.
>
> Just like the discussions around what the minimum Java version should be,
> the same counts for the minimum Maven version.
>
> What is the benefit for version X? (Keep in mind, that every individual
> plugin may choose a different minimum in case a specific change/feature is
> required)
> 3.1.0 is very clear to me: switch to eclipse aether (package change) and
> JSR330 support for plugins.
> All others contain (close to) no changes to the API, so there's no real
> gain.
>
> By using higher versions of Maven you might force people to upgrade Maven
> or stick to old plugins in case they can't upgrade.
> I don't think it should be our plugins to enforce a higher version of
> Maven.
> Hence I don't see any reason to require 3.5.0 or 3.6.0.
>
Definitely makes sense regarding core/plugin API
> I think it is pretty impressive that we can say that our plugins still
> support a wide range of Maven versions.
>
> So my vote will be 3.1.0
>
even if it doesn't happen that much my only concern is what we will do in
case of security issue with 3.1.0 what versions will we have to fix?
by saying we support 3.1.0 we must be clear (and it seems obvious to me) we
will only release 3.1.2 in case of security issue (same with other 3.x.x
series)
but still this can be a lot to maintain/release etc... (well ok still in
the very rare case of security issue)
>
> Robert
>
> On 25-5-2020 22:53:47, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
> @All
> Can we update the compatibility plan document saying we support from 3.5.4
> and 3.6.3.
> plugins will use API from 3.5.4 and can use java8 from now (June 2020) .
> As 3.7.0 is on his way (soon) supporting 3 series seems enough. (with 3.7.0
> using java8)
> @Robert
> As you didn't answer, I wonder if you still have strong opinions?
>
>
> On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 18:46, Michael Osipov wrote:
>
> > Am 2020-05-24 um 10:41 schrieb Olivier Lamy:
> > > On Sat, 23 May 2020 at 21:33, Robert Scholte
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> As discussed before: compatibility should either be 3.3.1 (since 3.3.0
> > >> didn't make it) or 3.5.0, we should not include the (highest) bugfix
> > >> version.
> > >>
> > > Great this means we can can rid of this hackhish refection stuff for
> > > aether...
> > >
> > > you mean we should support 3.3.1 3.3.3 and 3.3.9?
> > > by support I mean fixing security issues.
> > > so in this case what happen in case of a security issue for 3.3.1 do we
> > > have a to release 3.3.1.1 3.3.3.1 3.3.9.1
> > > Not sure I understand what we mean with support?
> > > anyway if we say all plugins must be at least 3.3.1 it's good progress
> >
> > I think we have discussed this before as I have raised this at least
> > once this one. The upshot is that we try to support (in terms of API and
> > ABI) in Plugins and Components a huge variety of Maven versions, but
> > only the last stable minor branch of Maven receives fixes.
> >
>
>
> --
> Olivier Lamy
> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
>
--
Olivier Lamy
http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
Re: next level of compatibility (was Re: [maven-site] branch master
updated: few precisions)
Posted by Robert Scholte <rf...@apache.org>.
I missed the proposal for the version. I saw 3.2.5 and that can't be correct, hence I tried to explain what the correct version should be.
So correct minimum version will be one of: 3.0, 3.1.0, 3.2.1, 3.3.1, 3.5.0
This is the version we should compile with, our integration tests use the latest bugfix for all.
Just like the discussions around what the minimum Java version should be, the same counts for the minimum Maven version.
What is the benefit for version X? (Keep in mind, that every individual plugin may choose a different minimum in case a specific change/feature is required)
3.1.0 is very clear to me: switch to eclipse aether (package change) and JSR330 support for plugins.
All others contain (close to) no changes to the API, so there's no real gain.
By using higher versions of Maven you might force people to upgrade Maven or stick to old plugins in case they can't upgrade.
I don't think it should be our plugins to enforce a higher version of Maven.
Hence I don't see any reason to require 3.5.0 or 3.6.0.
I think it is pretty impressive that we can say that our plugins still support a wide range of Maven versions.
So my vote will be 3.1.0
Robert
On 25-5-2020 22:53:47, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
@All
Can we update the compatibility plan document saying we support from 3.5.4
and 3.6.3.
plugins will use API from 3.5.4 and can use java8 from now (June 2020) .
As 3.7.0 is on his way (soon) supporting 3 series seems enough. (with 3.7.0
using java8)
@Robert
As you didn't answer, I wonder if you still have strong opinions?
On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 18:46, Michael Osipov wrote:
> Am 2020-05-24 um 10:41 schrieb Olivier Lamy:
> > On Sat, 23 May 2020 at 21:33, Robert Scholte
> wrote:
> >
> >> As discussed before: compatibility should either be 3.3.1 (since 3.3.0
> >> didn't make it) or 3.5.0, we should not include the (highest) bugfix
> >> version.
> >>
> > Great this means we can can rid of this hackhish refection stuff for
> > aether...
> >
> > you mean we should support 3.3.1 3.3.3 and 3.3.9?
> > by support I mean fixing security issues.
> > so in this case what happen in case of a security issue for 3.3.1 do we
> > have a to release 3.3.1.1 3.3.3.1 3.3.9.1
> > Not sure I understand what we mean with support?
> > anyway if we say all plugins must be at least 3.3.1 it's good progress
>
> I think we have discussed this before as I have raised this at least
> once this one. The upshot is that we try to support (in terms of API and
> ABI) in Plugins and Components a huge variety of Maven versions, but
> only the last stable minor branch of Maven receives fixes.
>
--
Olivier Lamy
http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
Re: next level of compatibility (was Re: [maven-site] branch master
updated: few precisions)
Posted by Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org>.
On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 22:47, Elliotte Rusty Harold <el...@ibiblio.org>
wrote:
> I don't think I've seen anything earlier than 3.3.x in recent memory,
> but 3.3.x is definitely still out there in the wild being used for new
> development.
>
> Given the massive amount of important work that remains to be done to
> upgrade plugins to Maven 3.1 and Java 7, or even Maven 3 and Java 5, I
> would hate to see people expending any energy on Java 8 right now. The
> ROI on that migration is neutral at best and possibly negative if
> people go all in on lambdas.
>
it will be possible to use java8 but it's not mandatory.
Don't this feature about being able to java8 as a mandatory "we have to
migrate the code"
It's just when working on fixing bug or improving some parts you can or not
use java8.
lambdas can be nice in some cases by making code more readable.
I see this as a way to attract more people to contribute by using new java
language features.
>
> On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 4:53 PM Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > @All
> > Can we update the compatibility plan document saying we support from
> 3.5.4
> > and 3.6.3.
> > plugins will use API from 3.5.4 and can use java8 from now (June 2020) .
> > As 3.7.0 is on his way (soon) supporting 3 series seems enough. (with
> 3.7.0
> > using java8)
> > @Robert
> > As you didn't answer, I wonder if you still have strong opinions?
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 18:46, Michael Osipov <mi...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Am 2020-05-24 um 10:41 schrieb Olivier Lamy:
> > > > On Sat, 23 May 2020 at 21:33, Robert Scholte <rf...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> As discussed before: compatibility should either be 3.3.1 (since
> 3.3.0
> > > >> didn't make it) or 3.5.0, we should not include the (highest) bugfix
> > > >> version.
> > > >>
> > > > Great this means we can can rid of this hackhish refection stuff for
> > > > aether...
> > > >
> > > > you mean we should support 3.3.1 3.3.3 and 3.3.9?
> > > > by support I mean fixing security issues.
> > > > so in this case what happen in case of a security issue for 3.3.1 do
> we
> > > > have a to release 3.3.1.1 3.3.3.1 3.3.9.1
> > > > Not sure I understand what we mean with support?
> > > > anyway if we say all plugins must be at least 3.3.1 it's good
> progress
> > >
> > > I think we have discussed this before as I have raised this at least
> > > once this one. The upshot is that we try to support (in terms of API
> and
> > > ABI) in Plugins and Components a huge variety of Maven versions, but
> > > only the last stable minor branch of Maven receives fixes.
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Olivier Lamy
> > http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
>
>
>
> --
> Elliotte Rusty Harold
> elharo@ibiblio.org
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
>
--
Olivier Lamy
http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
Re: next level of compatibility (was Re: [maven-site] branch master
updated: few precisions)
Posted by Elliotte Rusty Harold <el...@ibiblio.org>.
I don't think I've seen anything earlier than 3.3.x in recent memory,
but 3.3.x is definitely still out there in the wild being used for new
development.
Given the massive amount of important work that remains to be done to
upgrade plugins to Maven 3.1 and Java 7, or even Maven 3 and Java 5, I
would hate to see people expending any energy on Java 8 right now. The
ROI on that migration is neutral at best and possibly negative if
people go all in on lambdas.
On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 4:53 PM Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> @All
> Can we update the compatibility plan document saying we support from 3.5.4
> and 3.6.3.
> plugins will use API from 3.5.4 and can use java8 from now (June 2020) .
> As 3.7.0 is on his way (soon) supporting 3 series seems enough. (with 3.7.0
> using java8)
> @Robert
> As you didn't answer, I wonder if you still have strong opinions?
>
>
> On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 18:46, Michael Osipov <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Am 2020-05-24 um 10:41 schrieb Olivier Lamy:
> > > On Sat, 23 May 2020 at 21:33, Robert Scholte <rf...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> As discussed before: compatibility should either be 3.3.1 (since 3.3.0
> > >> didn't make it) or 3.5.0, we should not include the (highest) bugfix
> > >> version.
> > >>
> > > Great this means we can can rid of this hackhish refection stuff for
> > > aether...
> > >
> > > you mean we should support 3.3.1 3.3.3 and 3.3.9?
> > > by support I mean fixing security issues.
> > > so in this case what happen in case of a security issue for 3.3.1 do we
> > > have a to release 3.3.1.1 3.3.3.1 3.3.9.1
> > > Not sure I understand what we mean with support?
> > > anyway if we say all plugins must be at least 3.3.1 it's good progress
> >
> > I think we have discussed this before as I have raised this at least
> > once this one. The upshot is that we try to support (in terms of API and
> > ABI) in Plugins and Components a huge variety of Maven versions, but
> > only the last stable minor branch of Maven receives fixes.
> >
>
>
> --
> Olivier Lamy
> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
--
Elliotte Rusty Harold
elharo@ibiblio.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: next level of compatibility (was Re: [maven-site] branch master
updated: few precisions)
Posted by Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org>.
@All
Can we update the compatibility plan document saying we support from 3.5.4
and 3.6.3.
plugins will use API from 3.5.4 and can use java8 from now (June 2020) .
As 3.7.0 is on his way (soon) supporting 3 series seems enough. (with 3.7.0
using java8)
@Robert
As you didn't answer, I wonder if you still have strong opinions?
On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 18:46, Michael Osipov <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
> Am 2020-05-24 um 10:41 schrieb Olivier Lamy:
> > On Sat, 23 May 2020 at 21:33, Robert Scholte <rf...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >> As discussed before: compatibility should either be 3.3.1 (since 3.3.0
> >> didn't make it) or 3.5.0, we should not include the (highest) bugfix
> >> version.
> >>
> > Great this means we can can rid of this hackhish refection stuff for
> > aether...
> >
> > you mean we should support 3.3.1 3.3.3 and 3.3.9?
> > by support I mean fixing security issues.
> > so in this case what happen in case of a security issue for 3.3.1 do we
> > have a to release 3.3.1.1 3.3.3.1 3.3.9.1
> > Not sure I understand what we mean with support?
> > anyway if we say all plugins must be at least 3.3.1 it's good progress
>
> I think we have discussed this before as I have raised this at least
> once this one. The upshot is that we try to support (in terms of API and
> ABI) in Plugins and Components a huge variety of Maven versions, but
> only the last stable minor branch of Maven receives fixes.
>
--
Olivier Lamy
http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
Re: next level of compatibility (was Re: [maven-site] branch master
updated: few precisions)
Posted by Michael Osipov <mi...@apache.org>.
Am 2020-05-24 um 10:41 schrieb Olivier Lamy:
> On Sat, 23 May 2020 at 21:33, Robert Scholte <rf...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> As discussed before: compatibility should either be 3.3.1 (since 3.3.0
>> didn't make it) or 3.5.0, we should not include the (highest) bugfix
>> version.
>>
> Great this means we can can rid of this hackhish refection stuff for
> aether...
>
> you mean we should support 3.3.1 3.3.3 and 3.3.9?
> by support I mean fixing security issues.
> so in this case what happen in case of a security issue for 3.3.1 do we
> have a to release 3.3.1.1 3.3.3.1 3.3.9.1
> Not sure I understand what we mean with support?
> anyway if we say all plugins must be at least 3.3.1 it's good progress
I think we have discussed this before as I have raised this at least
once this one. The upshot is that we try to support (in terms of API and
ABI) in Plugins and Components a huge variety of Maven versions, but
only the last stable minor branch of Maven receives fixes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: next level of compatibility (was Re: [maven-site] branch master
updated: few precisions)
Posted by Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org>.
On Sat, 23 May 2020 at 21:33, Robert Scholte <rf...@apache.org> wrote:
> As discussed before: compatibility should either be 3.3.1 (since 3.3.0
> didn't make it) or 3.5.0, we should not include the (highest) bugfix
> version.
>
Great this means we can can rid of this hackhish refection stuff for
aether...
you mean we should support 3.3.1 3.3.3 and 3.3.9?
by support I mean fixing security issues.
so in this case what happen in case of a security issue for 3.3.1 do we
have a to release 3.3.1.1 3.3.3.1 3.3.9.1
Not sure I understand what we mean with support?
anyway if we say all plugins must be at least 3.3.1 it's good progress
> Robert
>
>
> On 23-5-2020 12:43:35, Arnaud Héritier <ah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1
>
> On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 11:13 AM Enrico Olivelli
> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > Enrico
> >
> > Il Sab 23 Mag 2020, 09:40 Sylwester Lachiewicz ha
> > scritto:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > sob., 23 maj 2020, 09:22 użytkownik Hervé BOUTEMY
> > >
> > > napisał:
> > >
> > > > Le vendredi 22 mai 2020, 02:13:16 CEST Olivier Lamy a écrit :
> > > > > > + * discussions on Maven > 3.0.x (3.1 or 3.2 or 3.3? details
> still
> > > > TDB) +
> > > > > > Java 8 prerequisites
> > > > >
> > > > > Don't be shy Hervé we can definitely says >= 3.3.9 (at least you
> will
> > > not
> > > > > hear any objections from me :) )
> > > >
> > > > looking at our history https://maven.apache.org/docs/history.html,
> > there
> > > > is 1
> > > > year between 3.1.max and 3.2.max then 1 year to 3.3.max: not so much
> > > > and AFAIK, many people went from 3.0 to 3.3+
> > > >
> > > > looks a good idea to me: +1
> > > >
> > > > any objection?
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Hervé
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> -----
> Arnaud Héritier
> http://aheritier.net
> Mail/GTalk: aheritier AT gmail DOT com
> Twitter/Skype : aheritier
>
--
Olivier Lamy
http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
Re: next level of compatibility (was Re: [maven-site] branch master
updated: few precisions)
Posted by Robert Scholte <rf...@apache.org>.
As discussed before: compatibility should either be 3.3.1 (since 3.3.0 didn't make it) or 3.5.0, we should not include the (highest) bugfix version.
Robert
On 23-5-2020 12:43:35, Arnaud Héritier <ah...@gmail.com> wrote:
+1
On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 11:13 AM Enrico Olivelli
wrote:
> +1
>
> Enrico
>
> Il Sab 23 Mag 2020, 09:40 Sylwester Lachiewicz ha
> scritto:
>
> > +1
> >
> > sob., 23 maj 2020, 09:22 użytkownik Hervé BOUTEMY
> >
> > napisał:
> >
> > > Le vendredi 22 mai 2020, 02:13:16 CEST Olivier Lamy a écrit :
> > > > > + * discussions on Maven > 3.0.x (3.1 or 3.2 or 3.3? details still
> > > TDB) +
> > > > > Java 8 prerequisites
> > > >
> > > > Don't be shy Hervé we can definitely says >= 3.3.9 (at least you will
> > not
> > > > hear any objections from me :) )
> > >
> > > looking at our history https://maven.apache.org/docs/history.html,
> there
> > > is 1
> > > year between 3.1.max and 3.2.max then 1 year to 3.3.max: not so much
> > > and AFAIK, many people went from 3.0 to 3.3+
> > >
> > > looks a good idea to me: +1
> > >
> > > any objection?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Hervé
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
>
--
-----
Arnaud Héritier
http://aheritier.net
Mail/GTalk: aheritier AT gmail DOT com
Twitter/Skype : aheritier
Re: next level of compatibility (was Re: [maven-site] branch master
updated: few precisions)
Posted by Arnaud Héritier <ah...@gmail.com>.
+1
On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 11:13 AM Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> +1
>
> Enrico
>
> Il Sab 23 Mag 2020, 09:40 Sylwester Lachiewicz <sl...@gmail.com> ha
> scritto:
>
> > +1
> >
> > sob., 23 maj 2020, 09:22 użytkownik Hervé BOUTEMY <herve.boutemy@free.fr
> >
> > napisał:
> >
> > > Le vendredi 22 mai 2020, 02:13:16 CEST Olivier Lamy a écrit :
> > > > > + * discussions on Maven > 3.0.x (3.1 or 3.2 or 3.3? details still
> > > TDB) +
> > > > > Java 8 prerequisites
> > > >
> > > > Don't be shy Hervé we can definitely says >= 3.3.9 (at least you will
> > not
> > > > hear any objections from me :) )
> > >
> > > looking at our history https://maven.apache.org/docs/history.html,
> there
> > > is 1
> > > year between 3.1.max and 3.2.max then 1 year to 3.3.max: not so much
> > > and AFAIK, many people went from 3.0 to 3.3+
> > >
> > > looks a good idea to me: +1
> > >
> > > any objection?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Hervé
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
>
--
-----
Arnaud Héritier
http://aheritier.net
Mail/GTalk: aheritier AT gmail DOT com
Twitter/Skype : aheritier
Re: next level of compatibility (was Re: [maven-site] branch master
updated: few precisions)
Posted by Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com>.
+1
Enrico
Il Sab 23 Mag 2020, 09:40 Sylwester Lachiewicz <sl...@gmail.com> ha
scritto:
> +1
>
> sob., 23 maj 2020, 09:22 użytkownik Hervé BOUTEMY <he...@free.fr>
> napisał:
>
> > Le vendredi 22 mai 2020, 02:13:16 CEST Olivier Lamy a écrit :
> > > > + * discussions on Maven > 3.0.x (3.1 or 3.2 or 3.3? details still
> > TDB) +
> > > > Java 8 prerequisites
> > >
> > > Don't be shy Hervé we can definitely says >= 3.3.9 (at least you will
> not
> > > hear any objections from me :) )
> >
> > looking at our history https://maven.apache.org/docs/history.html, there
> > is 1
> > year between 3.1.max and 3.2.max then 1 year to 3.3.max: not so much
> > and AFAIK, many people went from 3.0 to 3.3+
> >
> > looks a good idea to me: +1
> >
> > any objection?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Hervé
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
> >
> >
>
Re: next level of compatibility (was Re: [maven-site] branch master
updated: few precisions)
Posted by Sylwester Lachiewicz <sl...@gmail.com>.
+1
sob., 23 maj 2020, 09:22 użytkownik Hervé BOUTEMY <he...@free.fr>
napisał:
> Le vendredi 22 mai 2020, 02:13:16 CEST Olivier Lamy a écrit :
> > > + * discussions on Maven > 3.0.x (3.1 or 3.2 or 3.3? details still
> TDB) +
> > > Java 8 prerequisites
> >
> > Don't be shy Hervé we can definitely says >= 3.3.9 (at least you will not
> > hear any objections from me :) )
>
> looking at our history https://maven.apache.org/docs/history.html, there
> is 1
> year between 3.1.max and 3.2.max then 1 year to 3.3.max: not so much
> and AFAIK, many people went from 3.0 to 3.3+
>
> looks a good idea to me: +1
>
> any objection?
>
> Regards,
>
> Hervé
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
>
next level of compatibility (was Re: [maven-site] branch master updated: few precisions)
Posted by Hervé BOUTEMY <he...@free.fr>.
Le vendredi 22 mai 2020, 02:13:16 CEST Olivier Lamy a écrit :
> > + * discussions on Maven > 3.0.x (3.1 or 3.2 or 3.3? details still TDB) +
> > Java 8 prerequisites
>
> Don't be shy Hervé we can definitely says >= 3.3.9 (at least you will not
> hear any objections from me :) )
looking at our history https://maven.apache.org/docs/history.html, there is 1
year between 3.1.max and 3.2.max then 1 year to 3.3.max: not so much
and AFAIK, many people went from 3.0 to 3.3+
looks a good idea to me: +1
any objection?
Regards,
Hervé
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org