You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openjpa.apache.org by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> on 2012/01/13 19:24:41 UTC
apache parent pom 10
Hi!
I saw that we use a pretty old apache parent-7.
We should upgrade to version 10 which improves support for maven-3 and other goodies.
Of course this needs some testing and a comparison of dependency and plugin versions we get due to this.
Btw, I'll be on vacation from tomorrow on till next friday. Means you have at least 7 days before I return to my task with preparing the 2.2.0 release. I'll catch up next friday and check the status.
LieGrue,
strub
Re: apache parent pom 10
Posted by Kevin Sutter <kw...@gmail.com>.
Improving the Release mechanisms sounds like a good plus to this move...
:-)
Kevin
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> wrote:
> apache parent 7 is really _very_ old and contains afaik some old rat
> rules, etc.
> There also have been problems with the release to repository.apache.orgwith older parent poms.
> Apache parent most of the times just upgrades to newer, bugfixed plugin
> versions but won't change dependencies.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Kevin Sutter <kw...@gmail.com>
> > To: dev@openjpa.apache.org; Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> > Cc:
> > Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 7:52 PM
> > Subject: Re: apache parent pom 10
> >
> > Hi Mark,
> > Enjoy your vacation!
> >
> > I think you'll find that the OpenJPA community is kind of conservative.
> We
> > normally don't move to new things like this parent pom unless it's
> > providing some function that is required. Even if it provides support
> for
> > maven-3, are there aspects of maven-3 that are on our wish list? I don't
> > mind upgrading to newer dependencies when it provides some bang for the
> > buck. But, moving to the latest just because it's the latest doesn't
> > get
> > me too excited. Know what I mean?
> >
> > (That was my personal opinion, not necessarily the openjpa team's
> opinion.)
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Kevin
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi!
> >>
> >> I saw that we use a pretty old apache parent-7.
> >> We should upgrade to version 10 which improves support for maven-3 and
> >> other goodies.
> >>
> >> Of course this needs some testing and a comparison of dependency and
> >> plugin versions we get due to this.
> >>
> >>
> >> Btw, I'll be on vacation from tomorrow on till next friday. Means you
> > have
> >> at least 7 days before I return to my task with preparing the 2.2.0
> >> release. I'll catch up next friday and check the status.
> >>
> >> LieGrue,
> >> strub
> >>
> >
>
Re: apache parent pom 10
Posted by Donald Woods <dw...@apache.org>.
Moving up should be okay, as long as the required runtime dependencies don't change.
When I updated the builds to use the new Nexus repo, 7 was the version everyone said to use.
-Donald
________________________________
From: Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
To: "dev@openjpa.apache.org" <de...@openjpa.apache.org>
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 2:05 PM
Subject: Re: apache parent pom 10
apache parent 7 is really _very_ old and contains afaik some old rat rules, etc.
There also have been problems with the release to repository.apache.org with older parent poms.
Apache parent most of the times just upgrades to newer, bugfixed plugin versions but won't change dependencies.
LieGrue,
strub
----- Original Message -----
> From: Kevin Sutter <kw...@gmail.com>
> To: dev@openjpa.apache.org; Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> Cc:
> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 7:52 PM
> Subject: Re: apache parent pom 10
>
> Hi Mark,
> Enjoy your vacation!
>
> I think you'll find that the OpenJPA community is kind of conservative. We
> normally don't move to new things like this parent pom unless it's
> providing some function that is required. Even if it provides support for
> maven-3, are there aspects of maven-3 that are on our wish list? I don't
> mind upgrading to newer dependencies when it provides some bang for the
> buck. But, moving to the latest just because it's the latest doesn't
> get
> me too excited. Know what I mean?
>
> (That was my personal opinion, not necessarily the openjpa team's opinion.)
>
> Thanks,
> Kevin
>
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> I saw that we use a pretty old apache parent-7.
>> We should upgrade to version 10 which improves support for maven-3 and
>> other goodies.
>>
>> Of course this needs some testing and a comparison of dependency and
>> plugin versions we get due to this.
>>
>>
>> Btw, I'll be on vacation from tomorrow on till next friday. Means you
> have
>> at least 7 days before I return to my task with preparing the 2.2.0
>> release. I'll catch up next friday and check the status.
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>
Re: apache parent pom 10
Posted by Albert Lee <al...@gmail.com>.
If we decide to move to the new level, I recommend to do this after 2.2.0
release to give a longer run way to flush out any problems introduce with
this upgrade..
Albert
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> wrote:
> apache parent 7 is really _very_ old and contains afaik some old rat
> rules, etc.
> There also have been problems with the release to repository.apache.orgwith older parent poms.
> Apache parent most of the times just upgrades to newer, bugfixed plugin
> versions but won't change dependencies.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Kevin Sutter <kw...@gmail.com>
> > To: dev@openjpa.apache.org; Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> > Cc:
> > Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 7:52 PM
> > Subject: Re: apache parent pom 10
> >
> > Hi Mark,
> > Enjoy your vacation!
> >
> > I think you'll find that the OpenJPA community is kind of conservative.
> We
> > normally don't move to new things like this parent pom unless it's
> > providing some function that is required. Even if it provides support
> for
> > maven-3, are there aspects of maven-3 that are on our wish list? I don't
> > mind upgrading to newer dependencies when it provides some bang for the
> > buck. But, moving to the latest just because it's the latest doesn't
> > get
> > me too excited. Know what I mean?
> >
> > (That was my personal opinion, not necessarily the openjpa team's
> opinion.)
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Kevin
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi!
> >>
> >> I saw that we use a pretty old apache parent-7.
> >> We should upgrade to version 10 which improves support for maven-3 and
> >> other goodies.
> >>
> >> Of course this needs some testing and a comparison of dependency and
> >> plugin versions we get due to this.
> >>
> >>
> >> Btw, I'll be on vacation from tomorrow on till next friday. Means you
> > have
> >> at least 7 days before I return to my task with preparing the 2.2.0
> >> release. I'll catch up next friday and check the status.
> >>
> >> LieGrue,
> >> strub
> >>
> >
>
--
Albert Lee.
Re: apache parent pom 10
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.
apache parent 7 is really _very_ old and contains afaik some old rat rules, etc.
There also have been problems with the release to repository.apache.org with older parent poms.
Apache parent most of the times just upgrades to newer, bugfixed plugin versions but won't change dependencies.
LieGrue,
strub
----- Original Message -----
> From: Kevin Sutter <kw...@gmail.com>
> To: dev@openjpa.apache.org; Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> Cc:
> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 7:52 PM
> Subject: Re: apache parent pom 10
>
> Hi Mark,
> Enjoy your vacation!
>
> I think you'll find that the OpenJPA community is kind of conservative. We
> normally don't move to new things like this parent pom unless it's
> providing some function that is required. Even if it provides support for
> maven-3, are there aspects of maven-3 that are on our wish list? I don't
> mind upgrading to newer dependencies when it provides some bang for the
> buck. But, moving to the latest just because it's the latest doesn't
> get
> me too excited. Know what I mean?
>
> (That was my personal opinion, not necessarily the openjpa team's opinion.)
>
> Thanks,
> Kevin
>
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> I saw that we use a pretty old apache parent-7.
>> We should upgrade to version 10 which improves support for maven-3 and
>> other goodies.
>>
>> Of course this needs some testing and a comparison of dependency and
>> plugin versions we get due to this.
>>
>>
>> Btw, I'll be on vacation from tomorrow on till next friday. Means you
> have
>> at least 7 days before I return to my task with preparing the 2.2.0
>> release. I'll catch up next friday and check the status.
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>
Re: apache parent pom 10
Posted by Kevin Sutter <kw...@gmail.com>.
Hi Mark,
Enjoy your vacation!
I think you'll find that the OpenJPA community is kind of conservative. We
normally don't move to new things like this parent pom unless it's
providing some function that is required. Even if it provides support for
maven-3, are there aspects of maven-3 that are on our wish list? I don't
mind upgrading to newer dependencies when it provides some bang for the
buck. But, moving to the latest just because it's the latest doesn't get
me too excited. Know what I mean?
(That was my personal opinion, not necessarily the openjpa team's opinion.)
Thanks,
Kevin
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I saw that we use a pretty old apache parent-7.
> We should upgrade to version 10 which improves support for maven-3 and
> other goodies.
>
> Of course this needs some testing and a comparison of dependency and
> plugin versions we get due to this.
>
>
> Btw, I'll be on vacation from tomorrow on till next friday. Means you have
> at least 7 days before I return to my task with preparing the 2.2.0
> release. I'll catch up next friday and check the status.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>