You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@maven.apache.org by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com> on 2012/12/01 18:30:18 UTC
3.1.0 decision making
I'm writing this to move the discussion about our next release off of
a VOTE thread, where I don't think it belongs.
Let me make a little historical summary. Jason and others made a
series of significant changes to the core internals, including changes
to logging that some users of some plugins may view as incompatible.
No one vetoed those changes, though there's been plenty of discussion.
Jason sent email announcing his intention to RM a 3.1.0.
No one, as far as I recall, objected, but perhaps my memory is selective.
Jason put 3.1.0 out for a vote.
Two sets of objections surfaced:
o The objection of those who are not happy with the logging change.
o The objection of those who think it a problem to create a 3.x
release with only internal improvements, but no user-visible features.
(Footnote: fixing all the memory leakage is a big user-visible
'feature' for M2E and other embedded users.)
I wish that people had raised these objections at the time that the
release was proposed, but the main matter at hand is to decide what to
do about them.
I offer some options:
1: proceed 'as-is'. Some people won't love 3.1 because it offers them
nothing they care about, and others may object to the results of the
logging change. So they will hang back until we make further progress.
That's fine. If someone hits a bad-enough bug, we can even make a
3.0.5.
2: proceed 'as-is', but announce and release-note the release as
something like: "Release 3.1.0 is intended for use by plugin
developers and advanced users to test out and exercise significant
architectural changes. Others may prefer to stick to 3.0.4 until we go
through a cycle of collecting feedback and push out one or more 3.1.x
releases".
3: Same idea as (2), but label it 3.1-beta1.
4: Stop in our tracks until we resolve these questions.
I'm opposed to option 4. I'm particularly opposed to the view that a
3.1 release must have goodies for end users, like fancy colors. I've
no objection to (or use for) colors, but I feel quite strongly that
it's legitimate to ship a release that pushes out architecture even if
it has no instant gratification for end users.
As for the logging argument, I'd rather take (2) or (3) than (4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: 3.1.0 decision making
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.
@Benson
>No one, as far as I recall, objected, but perhaps my memory is selective.
just for the record: I did cast -1 on the commit and explained my objections ...
I
obviously don't like it but I wont 'veto' it as those technical
questions are simply majority votes. And there are quite some devs who
like it it seems...
@Kristian
> As long as the reworked plugins still work
> with older maven versions I think we're in the clear.
The new plugins will only work with maven-3.1++ as they will not find any slf4j logger on older versions.
What I'm more concerned is that old projects which perfectly work with mvn-2.2.0, mvn-2.2.1, mvn-3.0.3, mvn-3.0.4, etc don't work anymore with mvn-3.1. This will not be the case very often but it will happen. Of course nothing which cannot get fixed. Well, the LocationAwareLogger incompatibility might be a blow sometimes...
LieGrue,
strub
----- Original Message -----
> From: Kristian Rosenvold <kr...@gmail.com>
> To: Maven Developers List <de...@maven.apache.org>
> Cc:
> Sent: Saturday, December 1, 2012 6:51 PM
> Subject: Re: 3.1.0 decision making
>
> Although I generally stay away from any kind of logging-discussion
> (and logging in general), I'd like to add my 0.5 NOK:
>
> The version number *is* 3.1 due to this slight compatibility change;
> we need to make this clear in release announcements to control
> community expectations.
>
> If a few plugins need reworking to stay compatible I think that's ok;
> it's the price of progress. As long as the reworked plugins still work
> with older maven versions I think we're in the clear.
>
> Furthermore I do not think maven needs to be a "generalized execution
> environment" that imposes no constraints on plugins. This is IMO where
> maven differs from something like an EJB container.
>
> I say 1 or 4 are the only viable options, and I'm all for 1.
>
> Kristian
>
> 2012/12/1 Benson Ma rgulies <bi...@gmail.com>:
>> I'm writing this to move the discussion about our next release off of
>> a VOTE thread, where I don't think it belongs.
>>
>> Let me make a little historical summary. Jason and others made a
>> series of significant changes to the core internals, including changes
>> to logging that some users of some plugins may view as incompatible.
>>
>> No one vetoed those changes, though there's been plenty of discussion.
>>
>> Jason sent email announcing his intention to RM a 3.1.0.
>>
>> No one, as far as I recall, objected, but perhaps my memory is selective.
>>
>> Jason put 3.1.0 out for a vote.
>>
>> Two sets of objections surfaced:
>>
>> o The objection of those who are not happy with the logging change.
>> o The objection of those who think it a problem to create a 3.x
>> release with only internal improvements, but no user-visible features.
>> (Footnote: fixing all the memory leakage is a big user-visible
>> 'feature' for M2E and other embedded users.)
>>
>> I wish that people had raised these objections at the time that the
>> release was proposed, but the main matter at hand is to decide what to
>> do about them.
>>
>> I offer some options:
>>
>> 1: proceed 'as-is'. Some people won't love 3.1 because it
> offers them
>> nothing they care about, and others may object to the results of the
>> logging change. So they will hang back until we make further progress.
>> That's fine. If someone hits a bad-enough bug, we can even make a
>> 3.0.5.
>>
>> 2: proceed 'as-is', but announce and release-note the release as
>> something like: "Release 3.1.0 is intended for use by plugin
>> developers and advanced users to test out and exercise significant
>> architectural changes. Others may prefer to stick to 3.0.4 until we go
>> through a cycle of collecting feedback and push out one or more 3.1.x
>> releases".
>>
>> 3: Same idea as (2), but label it 3.1-beta1.
>>
>> 4: Stop in our tracks until we resolve these questions.
>>
>> I'm opposed to option 4. I'm particularly opposed to the view that
> a
>> 3.1 release must have goodies for end users, like fancy colors. I've
>> no objection to (or use for) colors, but I feel quite strongly that
>> it's legitimate to ship a release that pushes out architecture even if
>> it has no instant gratification for end users.
>>
>> As for the logging argument, I'd rather take (2) or (3) than (4).
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: 3.1.0 decision making
Posted by Kristian Rosenvold <kr...@gmail.com>.
Although I generally stay away from any kind of logging-discussion
(and logging in general), I'd like to add my 0.5 NOK:
The version number *is* 3.1 due to this slight compatibility change;
we need to make this clear in release announcements to control
community expectations.
If a few plugins need reworking to stay compatible I think that's ok;
it's the price of progress. As long as the reworked plugins still work
with older maven versions I think we're in the clear.
Furthermore I do not think maven needs to be a "generalized execution
environment" that imposes no constraints on plugins. This is IMO where
maven differs from something like an EJB container.
I say 1 or 4 are the only viable options, and I'm all for 1.
Kristian
2012/12/1 Benson Ma rgulies <bi...@gmail.com>:
> I'm writing this to move the discussion about our next release off of
> a VOTE thread, where I don't think it belongs.
>
> Let me make a little historical summary. Jason and others made a
> series of significant changes to the core internals, including changes
> to logging that some users of some plugins may view as incompatible.
>
> No one vetoed those changes, though there's been plenty of discussion.
>
> Jason sent email announcing his intention to RM a 3.1.0.
>
> No one, as far as I recall, objected, but perhaps my memory is selective.
>
> Jason put 3.1.0 out for a vote.
>
> Two sets of objections surfaced:
>
> o The objection of those who are not happy with the logging change.
> o The objection of those who think it a problem to create a 3.x
> release with only internal improvements, but no user-visible features.
> (Footnote: fixing all the memory leakage is a big user-visible
> 'feature' for M2E and other embedded users.)
>
> I wish that people had raised these objections at the time that the
> release was proposed, but the main matter at hand is to decide what to
> do about them.
>
> I offer some options:
>
> 1: proceed 'as-is'. Some people won't love 3.1 because it offers them
> nothing they care about, and others may object to the results of the
> logging change. So they will hang back until we make further progress.
> That's fine. If someone hits a bad-enough bug, we can even make a
> 3.0.5.
>
> 2: proceed 'as-is', but announce and release-note the release as
> something like: "Release 3.1.0 is intended for use by plugin
> developers and advanced users to test out and exercise significant
> architectural changes. Others may prefer to stick to 3.0.4 until we go
> through a cycle of collecting feedback and push out one or more 3.1.x
> releases".
>
> 3: Same idea as (2), but label it 3.1-beta1.
>
> 4: Stop in our tracks until we resolve these questions.
>
> I'm opposed to option 4. I'm particularly opposed to the view that a
> 3.1 release must have goodies for end users, like fancy colors. I've
> no objection to (or use for) colors, but I feel quite strongly that
> it's legitimate to ship a release that pushes out architecture even if
> it has no instant gratification for end users.
>
> As for the logging argument, I'd rather take (2) or (3) than (4).
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: 3.1.0 decision making
Posted by Christian Schulte <cs...@schulte.it>.
Am 12/01/12 19:03, schrieb Hervé BOUTEMY:
> Le samedi 1 décembre 2012 18:52:51 Dennis Lundberg a écrit :
>> I would -1 any suggestion to start using the "beta" moniker again, at
>> least for the changes made this far.
> I completely agree
> would it be more a milestone, to show the "stable but work in progress" state?
> 3.1.0-m1?
A milestone is quite meaningless without knowing the next steps towards
3.1.0. What will -m2, -m3, -mn look like ? What will the final 3.1.0
look like ? Would be good to plan this before releasing a milestone
people will be confused about.
--
Christian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: 3.1.0 decision making
Posted by Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io>.
Makes sense, that is the process at Eclipse and works well. Clear indication that it's something new to play with but might not want to rely on it in production quite yet.
On Dec 1, 2012, at 12:17 PM, Robert Scholte <rf...@apache.org> wrote:
> +1 for 3.1.0-m1
>
> Robert
>
> Op Sat, 01 Dec 2012 19:32:35 +0100 schreef Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>:
>
>> And +1 to Mark for noting that we don't veto releases, which is
>> something I'd meant to add in as a reminder.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> wrote:
>>> +1 for 3.1.0-m1
>>>
>>>
>>> LieGrue,
>>> strub
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: Hervé BOUTEMY <he...@free.fr>
>>>> To: Maven Developers List <de...@maven.apache.org>
>>>> Cc:
>>>> Sent: Saturday, December 1, 2012 7:03 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: 3.1.0 decision making
>>>>
>>>> Le samedi 1 décembre 2012 18:52:51 Dennis Lundberg a écrit :
>>>>> I would -1 any suggestion to start using the "beta" moniker
>>>> again, at
>>>>> least for the changes made this far.
>>>> I completely agree
>>>> would it be more a milestone, to show the "stable but work in
>>>> progress" state?
>>>> 3.1.0-m1?
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 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
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>
Thanks,
Jason
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder & CTO, Sonatype
Founder, Apache Maven
http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
---------------------------------------------------------
Re: 3.1.0 decision making
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
On Dec 1, 2012, at 15:23, Stephen Connolly
<st...@gmail.com> wrote:
> -1 for 3.1.0-m1
>
> +1 for 3.1.0
>
> Let's just stop faffing about and get cutting releases already
+1, if it is stable, release it. Backward compatibility must be doc'd.
Gary
>
> -Stephen
>
>
> On 1 December 2012 20:17, Robert Scholte <rf...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> +1 for 3.1.0-m1
>>
>> Robert
>>
>> Op Sat, 01 Dec 2012 19:32:35 +0100 schreef Benson Margulies <
>> bimargulies@gmail.com>:
>>
>>
>> And +1 to Mark for noting that we don't veto releases, which is
>>> something I'd meant to add in as a reminder.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1 for 3.1.0-m1
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> LieGrue,
>>>> strub
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>
>>>>> From: Hervé BOUTEMY <he...@free.fr>
>>>>> To: Maven Developers List <de...@maven.apache.org>
>>>>> Cc:
>>>>> Sent: Saturday, December 1, 2012 7:03 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: 3.1.0 decision making
>>>>>
>>>>> Le samedi 1 décembre 2012 18:52:51 Dennis Lundberg a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>>> I would -1 any suggestion to start using the "beta" moniker
>>>>>>
>>>>> again, at
>>>>>
>>>>>> least for the changes made this far.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I completely agree
>>>>> would it be more a milestone, to show the "stable but work in
>>>>> progress" state?
>>>>> 3.1.0-m1?
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**
>>>>> ---------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.**org<de...@maven.apache.org>
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**
>>>> ---------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.**org<de...@maven.apache.org>
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.**org<de...@maven.apache.org>
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>
>>
>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.**org<de...@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: 3.1.0 decision making
Posted by Jeff Jensen <je...@upstairstechnology.com>.
Milestones are great idea, and there has already been a few (just named the
same! :-).
+1 for 3.1.0
Nice infra improvements including SLF4J. Appreciating you patiently RM'ing
this Jason...
(and +1 for Logback; haven't used Log4j in 4 years).
On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io> wrote:
> I will cut the release :-)
>
> But I don't think the milestones are a bad idea. It's a clear indicator of
> what it is and we have already seen one case where something is not going
> to work. Maybe during the milestones we can figure out how not to break
> Sonar which would be nice. It might give us a chance to see if the logging
> changes punch anyone else in the face which is also not a bad thing.
>
> But the release is coming, fear not.
>
> On Dec 1, 2012, at 12:22 PM, Stephen Connolly <
> stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > -1 for 3.1.0-m1
> >
> > +1 for 3.1.0
> >
> > Let's just stop faffing about and get cutting releases already
> >
> > -Stephen
> >
> >
> > On 1 December 2012 20:17, Robert Scholte <rf...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> +1 for 3.1.0-m1
> >>
> >> Robert
> >>
> >> Op Sat, 01 Dec 2012 19:32:35 +0100 schreef Benson Margulies <
> >> bimargulies@gmail.com>:
> >>
> >>
> >> And +1 to Mark for noting that we don't veto releases, which is
> >>> something I'd meant to add in as a reminder.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> +1 for 3.1.0-m1
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> LieGrue,
> >>>> strub
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>>
> >>>>> From: Hervé BOUTEMY <he...@free.fr>
> >>>>> To: Maven Developers List <de...@maven.apache.org>
> >>>>> Cc:
> >>>>> Sent: Saturday, December 1, 2012 7:03 PM
> >>>>> Subject: Re: 3.1.0 decision making
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Le samedi 1 décembre 2012 18:52:51 Dennis Lundberg a écrit :
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I would -1 any suggestion to start using the "beta" moniker
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> again, at
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> least for the changes made this far.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> I completely agree
> >>>>> would it be more a milestone, to show the "stable but work in
> >>>>> progress" state?
> >>>>> 3.1.0-m1?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**
> >>>>> ---------
> >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.**org<
> dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org>
> >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**
> >>>> ---------
> >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.**org<
> dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org>
> >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.**org<
> dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org>
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.**org<
> dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org>
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
> >>
> >>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jason
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Jason van Zyl
> Founder & CTO, Sonatype
> Founder, Apache Maven
> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> A man enjoys his work when he understands the whole and when he
> is responsible for the quality of the whole
>
> -- Christopher Alexander, A Pattern Language
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: 3.1.0 decision making
Posted by Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io>.
I will cut the release :-)
But I don't think the milestones are a bad idea. It's a clear indicator of what it is and we have already seen one case where something is not going to work. Maybe during the milestones we can figure out how not to break Sonar which would be nice. It might give us a chance to see if the logging changes punch anyone else in the face which is also not a bad thing.
But the release is coming, fear not.
On Dec 1, 2012, at 12:22 PM, Stephen Connolly <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
> -1 for 3.1.0-m1
>
> +1 for 3.1.0
>
> Let's just stop faffing about and get cutting releases already
>
> -Stephen
>
>
> On 1 December 2012 20:17, Robert Scholte <rf...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> +1 for 3.1.0-m1
>>
>> Robert
>>
>> Op Sat, 01 Dec 2012 19:32:35 +0100 schreef Benson Margulies <
>> bimargulies@gmail.com>:
>>
>>
>> And +1 to Mark for noting that we don't veto releases, which is
>>> something I'd meant to add in as a reminder.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1 for 3.1.0-m1
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> LieGrue,
>>>> strub
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>
>>>>> From: Hervé BOUTEMY <he...@free.fr>
>>>>> To: Maven Developers List <de...@maven.apache.org>
>>>>> Cc:
>>>>> Sent: Saturday, December 1, 2012 7:03 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: 3.1.0 decision making
>>>>>
>>>>> Le samedi 1 décembre 2012 18:52:51 Dennis Lundberg a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>>> I would -1 any suggestion to start using the "beta" moniker
>>>>>>
>>>>> again, at
>>>>>
>>>>>> least for the changes made this far.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I completely agree
>>>>> would it be more a milestone, to show the "stable but work in
>>>>> progress" state?
>>>>> 3.1.0-m1?
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**
>>>>> ---------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.**org<de...@maven.apache.org>
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**
>>>> ---------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.**org<de...@maven.apache.org>
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.**org<de...@maven.apache.org>
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>
>>
>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.**org<de...@maven.apache.org>
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>
>>
Thanks,
Jason
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder & CTO, Sonatype
Founder, Apache Maven
http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
---------------------------------------------------------
A man enjoys his work when he understands the whole and when he
is responsible for the quality of the whole
-- Christopher Alexander, A Pattern Language
Re: 3.1.0 decision making
Posted by Stephen Connolly <st...@gmail.com>.
-1 for 3.1.0-m1
+1 for 3.1.0
Let's just stop faffing about and get cutting releases already
-Stephen
On 1 December 2012 20:17, Robert Scholte <rf...@apache.org> wrote:
> +1 for 3.1.0-m1
>
> Robert
>
> Op Sat, 01 Dec 2012 19:32:35 +0100 schreef Benson Margulies <
> bimargulies@gmail.com>:
>
>
> And +1 to Mark for noting that we don't veto releases, which is
>> something I'd meant to add in as a reminder.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 for 3.1.0-m1
>>>
>>>
>>> LieGrue,
>>> strub
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>
>>>> From: Hervé BOUTEMY <he...@free.fr>
>>>> To: Maven Developers List <de...@maven.apache.org>
>>>> Cc:
>>>> Sent: Saturday, December 1, 2012 7:03 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: 3.1.0 decision making
>>>>
>>>> Le samedi 1 décembre 2012 18:52:51 Dennis Lundberg a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>> I would -1 any suggestion to start using the "beta" moniker
>>>>>
>>>> again, at
>>>>
>>>>> least for the changes made this far.
>>>>>
>>>> I completely agree
>>>> would it be more a milestone, to show the "stable but work in
>>>> progress" state?
>>>> 3.1.0-m1?
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**
>>>> ---------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.**org<de...@maven.apache.org>
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**
>>> ---------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.**org<de...@maven.apache.org>
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.**org<de...@maven.apache.org>
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>
>
> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.**org<de...@maven.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
>
Re: 3.1.0 decision making
Posted by Robert Scholte <rf...@apache.org>.
+1 for 3.1.0-m1
Robert
Op Sat, 01 Dec 2012 19:32:35 +0100 schreef Benson Margulies
<bi...@gmail.com>:
> And +1 to Mark for noting that we don't veto releases, which is
> something I'd meant to add in as a reminder.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> wrote:
>> +1 for 3.1.0-m1
>>
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Hervé BOUTEMY <he...@free.fr>
>>> To: Maven Developers List <de...@maven.apache.org>
>>> Cc:
>>> Sent: Saturday, December 1, 2012 7:03 PM
>>> Subject: Re: 3.1.0 decision making
>>>
>>> Le samedi 1 décembre 2012 18:52:51 Dennis Lundberg a écrit :
>>>> I would -1 any suggestion to start using the "beta" moniker
>>> again, at
>>>> least for the changes made this far.
>>> I completely agree
>>> would it be more a milestone, to show the "stable but work in
>>> progress" state?
>>> 3.1.0-m1?
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: 3.1.0 decision making
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
And +1 to Mark for noting that we don't veto releases, which is
something I'd meant to add in as a reminder.
On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> wrote:
> +1 for 3.1.0-m1
>
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Hervé BOUTEMY <he...@free.fr>
>> To: Maven Developers List <de...@maven.apache.org>
>> Cc:
>> Sent: Saturday, December 1, 2012 7:03 PM
>> Subject: Re: 3.1.0 decision making
>>
>> Le samedi 1 décembre 2012 18:52:51 Dennis Lundberg a écrit :
>>> I would -1 any suggestion to start using the "beta" moniker
>> again, at
>>> least for the changes made this far.
>> I completely agree
>> would it be more a milestone, to show the "stable but work in
>> progress" state?
>> 3.1.0-m1?
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: 3.1.0 decision making
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.
+1 for 3.1.0-m1
LieGrue,
strub
----- Original Message -----
> From: Hervé BOUTEMY <he...@free.fr>
> To: Maven Developers List <de...@maven.apache.org>
> Cc:
> Sent: Saturday, December 1, 2012 7:03 PM
> Subject: Re: 3.1.0 decision making
>
> Le samedi 1 décembre 2012 18:52:51 Dennis Lundberg a écrit :
>> I would -1 any suggestion to start using the "beta" moniker
> again, at
>> least for the changes made this far.
> I completely agree
> would it be more a milestone, to show the "stable but work in
> progress" state?
> 3.1.0-m1?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: 3.1.0 decision making
Posted by Hervé BOUTEMY <he...@free.fr>.
Le samedi 1 décembre 2012 18:52:51 Dennis Lundberg a écrit :
> I would -1 any suggestion to start using the "beta" moniker again, at
> least for the changes made this far.
I completely agree
would it be more a milestone, to show the "stable but work in progress" state?
3.1.0-m1?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: 3.1.0 decision making
Posted by Dennis Lundberg <de...@apache.org>.
First off, thanks for an excellent summary Benson!
Comments inline...
On 2012-12-01 18:30, Benson Margulies wrote:
> I'm writing this to move the discussion about our next release off of
> a VOTE thread, where I don't think it belongs.
>
> Let me make a little historical summary. Jason and others made a
> series of significant changes to the core internals, including changes
> to logging that some users of some plugins may view as incompatible.
>
> No one vetoed those changes, though there's been plenty of discussion.
>
> Jason sent email announcing his intention to RM a 3.1.0.
>
> No one, as far as I recall, objected, but perhaps my memory is selective.
That's my recollection as well.
> Jason put 3.1.0 out for a vote.
>
> Two sets of objections surfaced:
>
> o The objection of those who are not happy with the logging change.
> o The objection of those who think it a problem to create a 3.x
> release with only internal improvements, but no user-visible features.
> (Footnote: fixing all the memory leakage is a big user-visible
> 'feature' for M2E and other embedded users.)
>
> I wish that people had raised these objections at the time that the
> release was proposed, but the main matter at hand is to decide what to
> do about them.
I agree that these objections should have been raised back when we
discussed the architectural changes.
> I offer some options:
>
> 1: proceed 'as-is'. Some people won't love 3.1 because it offers them
> nothing they care about, and others may object to the results of the
> logging change. So they will hang back until we make further progress.
> That's fine. If someone hits a bad-enough bug, we can even make a
> 3.0.5.
>
> 2: proceed 'as-is', but announce and release-note the release as
> something like: "Release 3.1.0 is intended for use by plugin
> developers and advanced users to test out and exercise significant
> architectural changes. Others may prefer to stick to 3.0.4 until we go
> through a cycle of collecting feedback and push out one or more 3.1.x
> releases".
>
> 3: Same idea as (2), but label it 3.1-beta1.
>
> 4: Stop in our tracks until we resolve these questions.
>
> I'm opposed to option 4. I'm particularly opposed to the view that a
> 3.1 release must have goodies for end users, like fancy colors. I've
> no objection to (or use for) colors, but I feel quite strongly that
> it's legitimate to ship a release that pushes out architecture even if
> it has no instant gratification for end users.
>
> As for the logging argument, I'd rather take (2) or (3) than (4).
My preference is 1 or perhaps 2, but I would rephrase it a bit as to not
alienate users to try the 3.1.0 version.
I would -1 any suggestion to start using the "beta" moniker again, at
least for the changes made this far.
4 is out of the question in my mind. We've already had the discussion
and back then we agreed that it would be wise to release 3.1.0 with
SLF4J and the simple implementation. That should make logging output
look like it always has.
Some would say that's boring, but I'd say it's backwards compatible. All
other changes such as "fancy" logging output would be deferred to a
later release of Maven.
Finally, unless there are overwhelming reasons against it (and I don't
see any) the RM should be the one in the driver's seat. Jason has
volunteered to be RM, which is great. Let him drive this through.
--
Dennis Lundberg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org