You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to commits@maven.apache.org by jd...@apache.org on 2009/04/21 18:24:43 UTC
svn commit: r767207 - /maven/components/branches/maven-2.1.x/pom.xml
Author: jdcasey
Date: Tue Apr 21 16:24:42 2009
New Revision: 767207
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=767207&view=rev
Log:
update to require java 1.5.
Modified:
maven/components/branches/maven-2.1.x/pom.xml
Modified: maven/components/branches/maven-2.1.x/pom.xml
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/maven/components/branches/maven-2.1.x/pom.xml?rev=767207&r1=767206&r2=767207&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- maven/components/branches/maven-2.1.x/pom.xml (original)
+++ maven/components/branches/maven-2.1.x/pom.xml Tue Apr 21 16:24:42 2009
@@ -133,6 +133,10 @@
<groupId>org.apache.maven.plugins</groupId>
<artifactId>maven-compiler-plugin</artifactId>
<version>2.0.2</version>
+ <configuration>
+ <source>1.5</source>
+ <target>1.5</target>
+ </configuration>
</plugin>
<plugin>
<artifactId>maven-assembly-plugin</artifactId>
@@ -245,6 +249,28 @@
</plugin>
</plugins>
</pluginManagement>
+ <plugins>
+ <plugin>
+ <artifactId>maven-enforcer-plugin</artifactId>
+ <version>1.0-alpha-4</version>
+ <executions>
+ <execution>
+ <id>enforce-jdk</id>
+ <goals>
+ <goal>enforce</goal>
+ </goals>
+ <configuration>
+ <rules>
+ <requireJavaVersion>
+ <version>[1.5.0,]</version>
+ </requireJavaVersion>
+ </rules>
+ <fail>true</fail>
+ </configuration>
+ </execution>
+ </executions>
+ </plugin>
+ </plugins>
</build>
<modules>
Re: svn commit: r767207 - /maven/components/branches/maven-2.1.x/pom.xml
Posted by Arnaud HERITIER <ah...@gmail.com>.
I know and I was agree but we didn't do it. We didn't warn our users when we
published 2.1.0 (or I didn't see it).
Arnaud
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 1:11 AM, Brian Fox <br...@infinity.nu> wrote:
> We previously already voted that 2.1.x would require 1.5.
>
>
> Arnaud HERITIER wrote:
>
>> Bumping the Java requirement doesn't feel like a maintenance release
>>> IMHO.
>>> Therefore, shouldn't we bump the Maven version to 2.2 as well and rename
>>> the
>>> branch or create a new one?
>>>
>>> +1 It's a too big change for a bug fix release
>>>
>>>
>> Arnaud
>>
>>
>>
>
--
Arnaud
Re: svn commit: r767207 - /maven/components/branches/maven-2.1.x/pom.xml
Posted by Brian Fox <br...@infinity.nu>.
We previously already voted that 2.1.x would require 1.5.
Arnaud HERITIER wrote:
>>
>> Bumping the Java requirement doesn't feel like a maintenance release IMHO.
>> Therefore, shouldn't we bump the Maven version to 2.2 as well and rename the
>> branch or create a new one?
>>
>> +1 It's a too big change for a bug fix release
>>
> Arnaud
>
>
Re: svn commit: r767207 - /maven/components/branches/maven-2.1.x/pom.xml
Posted by Arnaud HERITIER <ah...@gmail.com>.
+1 for the branch if someone wants to work on it.
Arnaud
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 1:09 AM, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> wrote:
> While I'd be ok with updating the base requirement, starting to make a lot
> of changes to generify things should probably be kept to 2.2.x (I've seen
> bugs introduced in other projects in the process due to casting, interface
> breakage, etc). I agree with John's tweeted intent to keep 2.1.1 to a small
> set of changes and roll it out quickly :)
>
> This seems as good a time as any to create the 2.2.x branch with those
> java5 changes?
>
> Cheers,
> Brett
>
>
> On 22/04/2009, at 8:30 AM, Arnaud HERITIER wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Bumping the Java requirement doesn't feel like a maintenance release
>>> IMHO.
>>> Therefore, shouldn't we bump the Maven version to 2.2 as well and rename
>>> the
>>> branch or create a new one?
>>>
>>> +1 It's a too big change for a bug fix release
>>>
>> Arnaud
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
>
--
Arnaud
Re: svn commit: r767207 - /maven/components/branches/maven-2.1.x/pom.xml
Posted by Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>.
On 23/04/2009, at 1:27 AM, John Casey wrote:
> So, if it's a big concern let's branch for the generic conversion
> stuff I did (and to continue that work), but let's not force 1.4 on
> this release. It's unnecessary IMO. For the few users still actually
> using 1.4 on a daily basis, it shouldn't be a big stretch for them
> to add a new JDK so they can use the new Maven release. We've
> already decided on this course of action, and we have to let them
> know sometime.
+1
- Brett
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: svn commit: r767207 - /maven/components/branches/maven-2.1.x/pom.xml
Posted by John Casey <jd...@commonjava.org>.
I added that today, after Benjamin mentioned it.
Arnaud HERITIER wrote:
> http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-4143Actually it's scheduled for 2.1.1
>
> Arnaud
>
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 10:49 PM, Dennis Lundberg <de...@apache.org>wrote:
>
>> Benjamin Bentmann wrote:
>>> John Casey wrote:
>>>
>>>> Since we've already decided that 2.1.0 would be moving to Java 1.5 I
>>>> can't see the use in hanging onto the 1.4 requirement
>>> Let me clarify that I'm fine with moving to Java 1.5 (hurray). My
>>> concern was that this change is made between 2.1.0 and 2.1.1, i.e. it's
>>> merely the version label that concerns me.
>>>
>>> From a user's perspective, updating a tool to a new point release should
>>> impose no suprises or migration work. But if someone developed a Maven
>>> plugin and updated its dependencies from maven-project:2.1.0 to
>>> maven-project:2.1.1 and thereby indirectly increased the JRE requirement
>>> of this project, he might be suprised. If someone built a project
>>> targetting Java 1.4 and has simply configured his JAVA_HOME to point at
>>> JDK 1.4 (to catch accidental usage of new API), he will need to
>>> configure the bootstrap class path or the toolchains to reach the same
>>> effect when migrating from Maven 2.1.0 to 2.1.1.
>>>
>>> IMHO, it doesn't matter what we previously planned for 2.1 regarding the
>>> Java requirement. Reality is that the released Maven 2.1.0 requires only
>>> Java 1.4 and it feels odd to me to have any point release of 2.1.x to
>>> have higher requirements than the start of this development line.
>>>
>>> In a related context, MNG-1948 looks like a new feature with significant
>>> code changes, so I again wonder whether 2.1.1 is the proper bucket for
>>> this instead of 2.2...
>>>
>>> Enough philosophy from me, the last thing I suggest is that we at least
>>> create a JIRA ticket for the Java version bump which shows up in the
>>> release notes for users to easily notice.
>> Very well put Benjamin.
>>
>> I have no objection to move to 1.5, but we can't do it for a point release.
>>
>>> Benjamin
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Dennis Lundberg
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: svn commit: r767207 - /maven/components/branches/maven-2.1.x/pom.xml
Posted by Arnaud HERITIER <ah...@gmail.com>.
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-4143Actually it's scheduled for 2.1.1
Arnaud
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 10:49 PM, Dennis Lundberg <de...@apache.org>wrote:
> Benjamin Bentmann wrote:
> > John Casey wrote:
> >
> >> Since we've already decided that 2.1.0 would be moving to Java 1.5 I
> >> can't see the use in hanging onto the 1.4 requirement
> >
> > Let me clarify that I'm fine with moving to Java 1.5 (hurray). My
> > concern was that this change is made between 2.1.0 and 2.1.1, i.e. it's
> > merely the version label that concerns me.
> >
> > From a user's perspective, updating a tool to a new point release should
> > impose no suprises or migration work. But if someone developed a Maven
> > plugin and updated its dependencies from maven-project:2.1.0 to
> > maven-project:2.1.1 and thereby indirectly increased the JRE requirement
> > of this project, he might be suprised. If someone built a project
> > targetting Java 1.4 and has simply configured his JAVA_HOME to point at
> > JDK 1.4 (to catch accidental usage of new API), he will need to
> > configure the bootstrap class path or the toolchains to reach the same
> > effect when migrating from Maven 2.1.0 to 2.1.1.
> >
> > IMHO, it doesn't matter what we previously planned for 2.1 regarding the
> > Java requirement. Reality is that the released Maven 2.1.0 requires only
> > Java 1.4 and it feels odd to me to have any point release of 2.1.x to
> > have higher requirements than the start of this development line.
> >
> > In a related context, MNG-1948 looks like a new feature with significant
> > code changes, so I again wonder whether 2.1.1 is the proper bucket for
> > this instead of 2.2...
> >
> > Enough philosophy from me, the last thing I suggest is that we at least
> > create a JIRA ticket for the Java version bump which shows up in the
> > release notes for users to easily notice.
>
> Very well put Benjamin.
>
> I have no objection to move to 1.5, but we can't do it for a point release.
>
> >
> > Benjamin
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Dennis Lundberg
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
>
--
Arnaud
Re: svn commit: r767207 - /maven/components/branches/maven-2.1.x/pom.xml
Posted by John Casey <jd...@commonjava.org>.
Brett Porter wrote:
>
> On 24/04/2009, at 12:01 PM, Brian Fox wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 4/23/2009 9:57 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
>>>
>>> On 24/04/2009, at 9:55 AM, Brian Fox wrote:
>>>
>>>> I agree, if we call it 2.2 because it moves to jdk 1.5 and we fix
>>>> the other stuff, great. But lets keep the scope very small and
>>>> limited so we can get the regressions in 2.1.0 out quickly.
>>>
>>> I don't think there's any harm in that. Version numbers are cheap. I
>>> agree, it's important we define scope and stick to it, whether it is
>>> short or long.
>>>
>>> But as I said before, while flipping to JDK 5 feels a bit icky, I'm
>>> kind of alright with it for 2.1.1 if we limit it in scope to just
>>> this change. Preferably not, but I don't think it's going to kill
>>> anyone.
>>>
>>> Perhaps there is an alternative. John, what about if we retain 2.1.0
>>> behaviour on JDK 5 for this? ie, catch an exception on a class not
>>> found and drop back with a warning in the console to use JDK 5 if you
>>> are affected by that issue. Keep source/target as 1.4.
>>>
>> If you have source 1.4 then you can't use the 1.5 apis can you?
>
> Pretty sure you can (type erasure and all that, and I doubt XPath is 1.5
> specific).
I'm happy to give this a run and see what happens. I'd prefer not to get
into the inevitable expansion of scope - or at least a lot of discussion
about why we're not expanding scope - that would come with a 2.2 version
change. I do see the point in not surprising users, too, so this might
be a decent way out, if it works. Another approach that's almost as ugly
as the line-reader approach might be traversing the DOM with some custom
code, though I haven't gotten my head around that as a solution yet.
What documentation standards do we need to adhere to for this sort of a
warning? I'm assuming it'd be good to give them a URL for more
information...is the JIRA enough, or do we need website docs for the bug?
-j
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: svn commit: r767207 - /maven/components/branches/maven-2.1.x/pom.xml
Posted by Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>.
On 24/04/2009, at 12:01 PM, Brian Fox wrote:
>
>
> On 4/23/2009 9:57 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
>>
>> On 24/04/2009, at 9:55 AM, Brian Fox wrote:
>>
>>> I agree, if we call it 2.2 because it moves to jdk 1.5 and we fix
>>> the other stuff, great. But lets keep the scope very small and
>>> limited so we can get the regressions in 2.1.0 out quickly.
>>
>> I don't think there's any harm in that. Version numbers are cheap.
>> I agree, it's important we define scope and stick to it, whether it
>> is short or long.
>>
>> But as I said before, while flipping to JDK 5 feels a bit icky, I'm
>> kind of alright with it for 2.1.1 if we limit it in scope to just
>> this change. Preferably not, but I don't think it's going to kill
>> anyone.
>>
>> Perhaps there is an alternative. John, what about if we retain
>> 2.1.0 behaviour on JDK 5 for this? ie, catch an exception on a
>> class not found and drop back with a warning in the console to use
>> JDK 5 if you are affected by that issue. Keep source/target as 1.4.
>>
> If you have source 1.4 then you can't use the 1.5 apis can you?
Pretty sure you can (type erasure and all that, and I doubt XPath is
1.5 specific).
- Brett
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: svn commit: r767207 - /maven/components/branches/maven-2.1.x/pom.xml
Posted by Brian Fox <br...@infinity.nu>.
On 4/23/2009 9:57 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
>
> On 24/04/2009, at 9:55 AM, Brian Fox wrote:
>
>> I agree, if we call it 2.2 because it moves to jdk 1.5 and we fix the
>> other stuff, great. But lets keep the scope very small and limited so
>> we can get the regressions in 2.1.0 out quickly.
>
> I don't think there's any harm in that. Version numbers are cheap. I
> agree, it's important we define scope and stick to it, whether it is
> short or long.
>
> But as I said before, while flipping to JDK 5 feels a bit icky, I'm
> kind of alright with it for 2.1.1 if we limit it in scope to just this
> change. Preferably not, but I don't think it's going to kill anyone.
>
> Perhaps there is an alternative. John, what about if we retain 2.1.0
> behaviour on JDK 5 for this? ie, catch an exception on a class not
> found and drop back with a warning in the console to use JDK 5 if you
> are affected by that issue. Keep source/target as 1.4.
>
If you have source 1.4 then you can't use the 1.5 apis can you?
> Would that work?
>
> Cheers,
> Brett
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: svn commit: r767207 - /maven/components/branches/maven-2.1.x/pom.xml
Posted by Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>.
On 24/04/2009, at 9:55 AM, Brian Fox wrote:
> I agree, if we call it 2.2 because it moves to jdk 1.5 and we fix
> the other stuff, great. But lets keep the scope very small and
> limited so we can get the regressions in 2.1.0 out quickly.
I don't think there's any harm in that. Version numbers are cheap. I
agree, it's important we define scope and stick to it, whether it is
short or long.
But as I said before, while flipping to JDK 5 feels a bit icky, I'm
kind of alright with it for 2.1.1 if we limit it in scope to just this
change. Preferably not, but I don't think it's going to kill anyone.
Perhaps there is an alternative. John, what about if we retain 2.1.0
behaviour on JDK 5 for this? ie, catch an exception on a class not
found and drop back with a warning in the console to use JDK 5 if you
are affected by that issue. Keep source/target as 1.4.
Would that work?
Cheers,
Brett
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: svn commit: r767207 - /maven/components/branches/maven-2.1.x/pom.xml
Posted by Brian Fox <br...@infinity.nu>.
I agree, if we call it 2.2 because it moves to jdk 1.5 and we fix the
other stuff, great. But lets keep the scope very small and limited so we
can get the regressions in 2.1.0 out quickly. I'm afraid that relabeling
it 2.2 would mean a pile on the bandwagon effect occurs and we'd be
stuck churning for a while.
Benjamin Bentmann wrote:
> John Casey wrote:
>
>> 1. leave MNG-4140 unfixed
>
> I admire your efforts on the core and my intention was surely not to
> hinder the progress you or anybody else makes, only to properly label it.
>
>> 2. drag in something like jdom +jaxen +saxpath to do xpath
>> search/replacement for MNG-4140
>> 3. attempt to approximate xpath for MNG-4140 using buffered-reader
>> and string matching or something...
>
> Ugh ;-)
>
>> Otherwise, we're talking about releasing 2.2, which has much larger
>> ramifications in terms of the feature set the user will/should expect.
>
> Personally, I see no problems with a minor update that provides only
> one or two bigger changes, like say MNG-4098 and MNG-4112. MNG-3043
> and MNG-1995 should also be ready features for 2.2 but too risky/heavy
> for 2.1.1. Your introduction of generics could also be a nice feature
> that plugin developers would like to see rather sooner than later I
> guess.
>
> Version names are mostly about the expections they drive in users,
> right?. In the spirit of better safe than sorry, I merely imagine that
> failing to meet these expections is less harmful for a minor update
> that does not have a long release history than for a point release
> that has this one issue that screws up your build.
>
> So I'm +1 to just go ahead and release 2.2 straight after 2.1. IMHO we
> have enough cool things hanging around to warrant that.
>
>
> Benjamin
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: svn commit: r767207 - /maven/components/branches/maven-2.1.x/pom.xml
Posted by Benjamin Bentmann <be...@udo.edu>.
John Casey wrote:
> 1. leave MNG-4140 unfixed
I admire your efforts on the core and my intention was surely not to
hinder the progress you or anybody else makes, only to properly label it.
> 2. drag in something like jdom +jaxen +saxpath to do xpath
> search/replacement for MNG-4140
> 3. attempt to approximate xpath for MNG-4140 using buffered-reader and
> string matching or something...
Ugh ;-)
> Otherwise, we're talking about releasing 2.2, which has much larger
> ramifications in terms of the feature set the user will/should expect.
Personally, I see no problems with a minor update that provides only one
or two bigger changes, like say MNG-4098 and MNG-4112. MNG-3043 and
MNG-1995 should also be ready features for 2.2 but too risky/heavy for
2.1.1. Your introduction of generics could also be a nice feature that
plugin developers would like to see rather sooner than later I guess.
Version names are mostly about the expections they drive in users,
right?. In the spirit of better safe than sorry, I merely imagine that
failing to meet these expections is less harmful for a minor update that
does not have a long release history than for a point release that has
this one issue that screws up your build.
So I'm +1 to just go ahead and release 2.2 straight after 2.1. IMHO we
have enough cool things hanging around to warrant that.
Benjamin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: svn commit: r767207 - /maven/components/branches/maven-2.1.x/pom.xml
Posted by John Casey <jd...@commonjava.org>.
Dennis Lundberg wrote:
> Benjamin Bentmann wrote:
>> John Casey wrote:
>
> I have no objection to move to 1.5, but we can't do it for a point release.
>
The alternatives to moving to 1.5 for 2.1.1 are:
1. leave MNG-4140 unfixed
2. drag in something like jdom +jaxen +saxpath to do xpath
search/replacement for MNG-4140
3. attempt to approximate xpath for MNG-4140 using buffered-reader and
string matching or something...
Otherwise, we're talking about releasing 2.2, which has much larger
ramifications in terms of the feature set the user will/should expect.
What's your suggestion?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: svn commit: r767207 - /maven/components/branches/maven-2.1.x/pom.xml
Posted by Dennis Lundberg <de...@apache.org>.
Benjamin Bentmann wrote:
> John Casey wrote:
>
>> Since we've already decided that 2.1.0 would be moving to Java 1.5 I
>> can't see the use in hanging onto the 1.4 requirement
>
> Let me clarify that I'm fine with moving to Java 1.5 (hurray). My
> concern was that this change is made between 2.1.0 and 2.1.1, i.e. it's
> merely the version label that concerns me.
>
> From a user's perspective, updating a tool to a new point release should
> impose no suprises or migration work. But if someone developed a Maven
> plugin and updated its dependencies from maven-project:2.1.0 to
> maven-project:2.1.1 and thereby indirectly increased the JRE requirement
> of this project, he might be suprised. If someone built a project
> targetting Java 1.4 and has simply configured his JAVA_HOME to point at
> JDK 1.4 (to catch accidental usage of new API), he will need to
> configure the bootstrap class path or the toolchains to reach the same
> effect when migrating from Maven 2.1.0 to 2.1.1.
>
> IMHO, it doesn't matter what we previously planned for 2.1 regarding the
> Java requirement. Reality is that the released Maven 2.1.0 requires only
> Java 1.4 and it feels odd to me to have any point release of 2.1.x to
> have higher requirements than the start of this development line.
>
> In a related context, MNG-1948 looks like a new feature with significant
> code changes, so I again wonder whether 2.1.1 is the proper bucket for
> this instead of 2.2...
>
> Enough philosophy from me, the last thing I suggest is that we at least
> create a JIRA ticket for the Java version bump which shows up in the
> release notes for users to easily notice.
Very well put Benjamin.
I have no objection to move to 1.5, but we can't do it for a point release.
>
> Benjamin
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
>
--
Dennis Lundberg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: svn commit: r767207 - /maven/components/branches/maven-2.1.x/pom.xml
Posted by Benjamin Bentmann <be...@udo.edu>.
John Casey wrote:
> Since we've already decided that 2.1.0 would be moving to Java 1.5 I
> can't see the use in hanging onto the 1.4 requirement
Let me clarify that I'm fine with moving to Java 1.5 (hurray). My
concern was that this change is made between 2.1.0 and 2.1.1, i.e. it's
merely the version label that concerns me.
From a user's perspective, updating a tool to a new point release
should impose no suprises or migration work. But if someone developed a
Maven plugin and updated its dependencies from maven-project:2.1.0 to
maven-project:2.1.1 and thereby indirectly increased the JRE requirement
of this project, he might be suprised. If someone built a project
targetting Java 1.4 and has simply configured his JAVA_HOME to point at
JDK 1.4 (to catch accidental usage of new API), he will need to
configure the bootstrap class path or the toolchains to reach the same
effect when migrating from Maven 2.1.0 to 2.1.1.
IMHO, it doesn't matter what we previously planned for 2.1 regarding the
Java requirement. Reality is that the released Maven 2.1.0 requires only
Java 1.4 and it feels odd to me to have any point release of 2.1.x to
have higher requirements than the start of this development line.
In a related context, MNG-1948 looks like a new feature with significant
code changes, so I again wonder whether 2.1.1 is the proper bucket for
this instead of 2.2...
Enough philosophy from me, the last thing I suggest is that we at least
create a JIRA ticket for the Java version bump which shows up in the
release notes for users to easily notice.
Benjamin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: svn commit: r767207 - /maven/components/branches/maven-2.1.x/pom.xml
Posted by John Casey <jd...@commonjava.org>.
I'm fine with rolling back the generic conversion stuff that I committed
for maven-artifact-* and maven-project-* yesterday (even though I was
very careful to check out the ways collections were populated, etc. to
avoid casting problems), but I did have to write new code for MNG-4140.
Since we've already decided that 2.1.0 would be moving to Java 1.5 I
can't see the use in hanging onto the 1.4 requirement, particularly when
it will throw a large monkeywrench in the fix for MNG-4140. I mean, I'm
already running into notices that 1.4 features are unsupported. I'm
using JAXP in this new code to avoid dragging in JDOM and all of its
dependencies (or similar), and there are big changes from 1.4 to 1.5 in
that code.
So, if it's a big concern let's branch for the generic conversion stuff
I did (and to continue that work), but let's not force 1.4 on this
release. It's unnecessary IMO. For the few users still actually using
1.4 on a daily basis, it shouldn't be a big stretch for them to add a
new JDK so they can use the new Maven release. We've already decided on
this course of action, and we have to let them know sometime.
-john
Brett Porter wrote:
> While I'd be ok with updating the base requirement, starting to make a
> lot of changes to generify things should probably be kept to 2.2.x (I've
> seen bugs introduced in other projects in the process due to casting,
> interface breakage, etc). I agree with John's tweeted intent to keep
> 2.1.1 to a small set of changes and roll it out quickly :)
>
> This seems as good a time as any to create the 2.2.x branch with those
> java5 changes?
>
> Cheers,
> Brett
>
> On 22/04/2009, at 8:30 AM, Arnaud HERITIER wrote:
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>> Bumping the Java requirement doesn't feel like a maintenance release
>>> IMHO.
>>> Therefore, shouldn't we bump the Maven version to 2.2 as well and
>>> rename the
>>> branch or create a new one?
>>>
>>> +1 It's a too big change for a bug fix release
>> Arnaud
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: svn commit: r767207 - /maven/components/branches/maven-2.1.x/pom.xml
Posted by Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>.
While I'd be ok with updating the base requirement, starting to make a
lot of changes to generify things should probably be kept to 2.2.x
(I've seen bugs introduced in other projects in the process due to
casting, interface breakage, etc). I agree with John's tweeted intent
to keep 2.1.1 to a small set of changes and roll it out quickly :)
This seems as good a time as any to create the 2.2.x branch with those
java5 changes?
Cheers,
Brett
On 22/04/2009, at 8:30 AM, Arnaud HERITIER wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>> Bumping the Java requirement doesn't feel like a maintenance
>> release IMHO.
>> Therefore, shouldn't we bump the Maven version to 2.2 as well and
>> rename the
>> branch or create a new one?
>>
>> +1 It's a too big change for a bug fix release
> Arnaud
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: svn commit: r767207 - /maven/components/branches/maven-2.1.x/pom.xml
Posted by Arnaud HERITIER <ah...@gmail.com>.
>
>
>>
> Bumping the Java requirement doesn't feel like a maintenance release IMHO.
> Therefore, shouldn't we bump the Maven version to 2.2 as well and rename the
> branch or create a new one?
>
> +1 It's a too big change for a bug fix release
Arnaud
Re: svn commit: r767207 - /maven/components/branches/maven-2.1.x/pom.xml
Posted by Benjamin Bentmann <be...@udo.edu>.
Hi John,
> Author: jdcasey
> Date: Tue Apr 21 16:24:42 2009
> New Revision: 767207
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=767207&view=rev
> Log:
> update to require java 1.5.
>
> Modified:
> maven/components/branches/maven-2.1.x/pom.xml
>
> Modified: maven/components/branches/maven-2.1.x/pom.xml
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/maven/components/branches/maven-2.1.x/pom.xml?rev=767207&r1=767206&r2=767207&view=diff
> ==============================================================================
> --- maven/components/branches/maven-2.1.x/pom.xml (original)
> +++ maven/components/branches/maven-2.1.x/pom.xml Tue Apr 21 16:24:42 2009
> @@ -133,6 +133,10 @@
> <groupId>org.apache.maven.plugins</groupId>
> <artifactId>maven-compiler-plugin</artifactId>
> <version>2.0.2</version>
> + <configuration>
> + <source>1.5</source>
> + <target>1.5</target>
> + </configuration>
Bumping the Java requirement doesn't feel like a maintenance release
IMHO. Therefore, shouldn't we bump the Maven version to 2.2 as well and
rename the branch or create a new one?
Benjamin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org