You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@maven.apache.org by Sylwester Lachiewicz <sl...@apache.org> on 2026/10/07 21:09:01 UTC
[DISCUSS] Minimum Maven prerequisite for ASF plugins: 3.9.0 or 3.6.3?
Hi,
A year ago we discussed the minimum Maven version for ASF plugins [1].
Slawomir proposed four options, and his summary on 2025-11-13 lists ten +1s for
3.9.0. The compatibility plan was updated accordingly [2][3]:
"In October 2025, Maven before 3.8.3 has been marked as EOL, meaning that
plugins should use 3.9.0 as minimum (as per Mailing List)"
Many plugins still declare <prerequisites><maven>3.6.3</maven>, so I would like
to clarify what that thread decided. Two questions:
1. Was that thread a formal vote, or a show of hands to be confirmed by a
[VOTE]?
2. Should we raise the prerequisite to 3.9.0 across our plugins, or keep
the existing 3.6.3 and update the compatibility plan to reflect that?
This is only about the outcome of last year's thread. This is only about
the outcome of last year's thread. It is not Maven 3.10.0 or about adopting
new APIs.
[1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/s2dvm1jg37vhrkkkplfknk494c68zfyv
[2] https://github.com/apache/maven-site/pull/1456
[3] https://maven.apache.org/developers/compatibility-plan.html
Regards,
Sylwester
Re: [DISCUSS] Minimum Maven prerequisite for ASF plugins: 3.9.0 or 3.6.3?
Posted by Michael Osipov <mi...@apache.org>.
Clearly 3.9, nothing newer. Since 3.10 has been just released by end of the year we can start to move to 3.9 all of our components.
On 2026-10-07 21:09 UTC Sylwester Lachiewicz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> A year ago we discussed the minimum Maven version for ASF plugins [1].
> Slawomir proposed four options, and his summary on 2025-11-13 lists ten +1s for
> 3.9.0. The compatibility plan was updated accordingly [2][3]:
>
> "In October 2025, Maven before 3.8.3 has been marked as EOL, meaning that
> plugins should use 3.9.0 as minimum (as per Mailing List)"
>
> Many plugins still declare <prerequisites><maven>3.6.3</maven>, so I would like
> to clarify what that thread decided. Two questions:
>
> 1. Was that thread a formal vote, or a show of hands to be confirmed by a
> [VOTE]?
> 2. Should we raise the prerequisite to 3.9.0 across our plugins, or keep
> the existing 3.6.3 and update the compatibility plan to reflect that?
>
> This is only about the outcome of last year's thread. This is only about
> the outcome of last year's thread. It is not Maven 3.10.0 or about adopting
> new APIs.
>
> [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/s2dvm1jg37vhrkkkplfknk494c68zfyv
> [2] https://github.com/apache/maven-site/pull/1456
> [3] https://maven.apache.org/developers/compatibility-plan.html
>
> Regards,
> Sylwester
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Minimum Maven prerequisite for ASF plugins: 3.9.0 or 3.6.3?
Posted by Hervé Boutemy <hb...@apache.org>.
Dependabot configuration on Maven core version should be updated to not upgrade so aggressively, IMHO
On 2026/10/09 21:53:26 Sylwester Lachiewicz wrote:
> Hi Hervé,
>
> Thanks, that settles it for me: the compatibility plan entry is the
> decision, and 3.9 is the minimum prerequisite. Plugins still declaring
> 3.6.3 can move to 3.9.0 with their next release.
>
> A related point: since several of you said 3.10 is too early, note that
> Dependabot is already moving our build baseline there. Since 1 October it
> has opened 31 "Bump mavenVersion from 3.9.16 to 3.10.0" PRs in our plugin
> and shared repositories; 18 are merged and 13 are open, several of them on
> the -3.x branches. For comparison, when 3.9 became the minimum in November
> 2025, 3.9.0 was almost three years old and 3.9.10 and 3.9.11 had been out
> for months; 3.10.0 is twelve days old, with no bugfix release yet.
>
> That does not change the prerequisite, but it changes what we compile and
> test against: Maven Resolver 1.9.27 -> 2.0.24 and SLF4J 1.7.36 -> 2.0.19.
> Code that binds to a method existing only in Resolver 2 compiles cleanly
> but fails with NoSuchMethodError for users on 3.9.x, and the unit tests
> then cover 3.10 behaviour only. Dependabot also bumps mavenVersion alone,
> which creates mixed classpaths: maven-invoker-plugin master now has
> mavenVersion 3.10.0 with resolverVersion 1.9.27.
>
> Regards,
> Sylwester
>
> On Fri, Oct 09, 2026 10:48 PM, Hervé Boutemy <hb...@apache.org> wrote:
> > last year, when this line was added to the page, I did not started a new
> long discussion, as the move was reasonable.
> >
> > but if adding a line on this page does not mean a decision, I don't get
> what this page means
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Hervé
>
> On Fri, Oct 09, 2026 10:48 PM, Hervé Boutemy <hb...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > last year, when this line was added to the page, I did not started a new
> > long discussion, as the move was reasonable.
> >
> > but if adding a line on this page does not mean a decision, I don't get
> > what this page means
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Hervé
> >
> > On 2026/10/09 11:31:49 Sylwester Lachiewicz wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Thanks for the replies. One point is still open for me.
> > >
> > > Matthias reads last year's thread as a discussion, not a vote. Hervé, you
> > > wrote that 3.9 was "already decided and documented", but the
> > compatibility
> > > plan has a single line for it, citing the mailing list thread, while the
> > > Java 17 entry next to it cites a vote.
> > >
> > > Can you confirm which it was: a project decision that our plugins should
> > > follow, or a discussion whose outcome each plugin applies when it needs
> > to?
> > > I don't intend to have long side discussions, your answer is enough to
> > > close this thread.
> > >
> > > Sylwester
> > >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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: [DISCUSS] Minimum Maven prerequisite for ASF plugins: 3.9.0 or 3.6.3?
Posted by Sylwester Lachiewicz <sl...@apache.org>.
Hi Hervé,
Thanks, that settles it for me: the compatibility plan entry is the
decision, and 3.9 is the minimum prerequisite. Plugins still declaring
3.6.3 can move to 3.9.0 with their next release.
A related point: since several of you said 3.10 is too early, note that
Dependabot is already moving our build baseline there. Since 1 October it
has opened 31 "Bump mavenVersion from 3.9.16 to 3.10.0" PRs in our plugin
and shared repositories; 18 are merged and 13 are open, several of them on
the -3.x branches. For comparison, when 3.9 became the minimum in November
2025, 3.9.0 was almost three years old and 3.9.10 and 3.9.11 had been out
for months; 3.10.0 is twelve days old, with no bugfix release yet.
That does not change the prerequisite, but it changes what we compile and
test against: Maven Resolver 1.9.27 -> 2.0.24 and SLF4J 1.7.36 -> 2.0.19.
Code that binds to a method existing only in Resolver 2 compiles cleanly
but fails with NoSuchMethodError for users on 3.9.x, and the unit tests
then cover 3.10 behaviour only. Dependabot also bumps mavenVersion alone,
which creates mixed classpaths: maven-invoker-plugin master now has
mavenVersion 3.10.0 with resolverVersion 1.9.27.
Regards,
Sylwester
On Fri, Oct 09, 2026 10:48 PM, Hervé Boutemy <hb...@apache.org> wrote:
> last year, when this line was added to the page, I did not started a new
long discussion, as the move was reasonable.
>
> but if adding a line on this page does not mean a decision, I don't get
what this page means
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Hervé
On Fri, Oct 09, 2026 10:48 PM, Hervé Boutemy <hb...@apache.org> wrote:
> last year, when this line was added to the page, I did not started a new
> long discussion, as the move was reasonable.
>
> but if adding a line on this page does not mean a decision, I don't get
> what this page means
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Hervé
>
> On 2026/10/09 11:31:49 Sylwester Lachiewicz wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Thanks for the replies. One point is still open for me.
> >
> > Matthias reads last year's thread as a discussion, not a vote. Hervé, you
> > wrote that 3.9 was "already decided and documented", but the
> compatibility
> > plan has a single line for it, citing the mailing list thread, while the
> > Java 17 entry next to it cites a vote.
> >
> > Can you confirm which it was: a project decision that our plugins should
> > follow, or a discussion whose outcome each plugin applies when it needs
> to?
> > I don't intend to have long side discussions, your answer is enough to
> > close this thread.
> >
> > Sylwester
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Minimum Maven prerequisite for ASF plugins: 3.9.0 or 3.6.3?
Posted by Hervé Boutemy <hb...@apache.org>.
last year, when this line was added to the page, I did not started a new long discussion, as the move was reasonable.
but if adding a line on this page does not mean a decision, I don't get what this page means
Regards,
Hervé
On 2026/10/09 11:31:49 Sylwester Lachiewicz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the replies. One point is still open for me.
>
> Matthias reads last year's thread as a discussion, not a vote. Hervé, you
> wrote that 3.9 was "already decided and documented", but the compatibility
> plan has a single line for it, citing the mailing list thread, while the
> Java 17 entry next to it cites a vote.
>
> Can you confirm which it was: a project decision that our plugins should
> follow, or a discussion whose outcome each plugin applies when it needs to?
> I don't intend to have long side discussions, your answer is enough to
> close this thread.
>
> Sylwester
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Minimum Maven prerequisite for ASF plugins: 3.9.0 or 3.6.3?
Posted by Sylwester Lachiewicz <sl...@apache.org>.
Hi,
Thanks for the replies. One point is still open for me.
Matthias reads last year's thread as a discussion, not a vote. Hervé, you
wrote that 3.9 was "already decided and documented", but the compatibility
plan has a single line for it, citing the mailing list thread, while the
Java 17 entry next to it cites a vote.
Can you confirm which it was: a project decision that our plugins should
follow, or a discussion whose outcome each plugin applies when it needs to?
I don't intend to have long side discussions, your answer is enough to
close this thread.
Sylwester
Re: [DISCUSS] Minimum Maven prerequisite for ASF plugins: 3.9.0 or 3.6.3?
Posted by Elliotte Rusty Harold <el...@ibiblio.org>.
Time matters. Today 3.9 is probably reasonable (and I wouldn't have
said that five years ago). 3.10 mostly isn't. This will eventually
change.
The one thing I would add is that if you don't need API from 3.9 and
can reasonably write a plugin that works in earlier and later
versions, it's always nice to do so. So don't bump the prerequisites
just for the heck of it. But if you need it for something, it's OK.
On Thu, Oct 8, 2026 at 8:15 PM Hervé Boutemy <hb...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Maven 3.9 as a minimum was already decided and documented in October 2025
> https://github.com/apache/maven-site/blame/master/content/markdown/developers/compatibility-plan.md
>
> this is a great plan to implement
>
>
> on upgrading minimum to 3.10, it's definitively too early:
> remember 3.10 is resolver 2, a transition for Maven 4, and is out just a few days ago, we're still at 3.10.0
>
>
> on shared-utils and styled message API:
> I get that reverting back from shared-utils to plexus-utils makes shared-utils too big on overlapping classes.
> Styled message API is the only part of shared-utils that should remain, as it is where the code landed to NOT depend on Maven core.
>
> Why not create a new release of shared-utils that contains just the styled message API?
> This would remove the overlap with plexus-utils, while not introducing a prerequisite on Maven 3.10
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Hervé
>
> On 2026/10/07 21:32:45 Slawomir Jaranowski wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Today I will go with 3.10.0 we have new API [1] like
> > - MessageBuilderFactory - we can drop maven-shared in many plugins
> > - we have java version in JavaToolchain
> >
> > 3.10.0 was released 2026-09-27 and I can see many issues with it ...
> > form some of days 3.10.0 is default on GH runners [2]
> >
> >
> > [1]
> > https://maven.apache.org/docs/3.10.0/release-notes.html#new-api-and-updates-for-maven-plugins
> > [2] https://github.com/actions/runner-images/releases
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 7 Oct 2026 at 23:09, Sylwester Lachiewicz <sl...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > A year ago we discussed the minimum Maven version for ASF plugins [1].
> > > Slawomir proposed four options, and his summary on 2025-11-13 lists ten
> > > +1s for
> > > 3.9.0. The compatibility plan was updated accordingly [2][3]:
> > >
> > > "In October 2025, Maven before 3.8.3 has been marked as EOL, meaning that
> > > plugins should use 3.9.0 as minimum (as per Mailing List)"
> > >
> > > Many plugins still declare <prerequisites><maven>3.6.3</maven>, so I would
> > > like
> > > to clarify what that thread decided. Two questions:
> > >
> > > 1. Was that thread a formal vote, or a show of hands to be confirmed by a
> > > [VOTE]?
> > > 2. Should we raise the prerequisite to 3.9.0 across our plugins, or keep
> > > the existing 3.6.3 and update the compatibility plan to reflect that?
> > >
> > > This is only about the outcome of last year's thread. This is only about
> > > the outcome of last year's thread. It is not Maven 3.10.0 or about adopting
> > > new APIs.
> > >
> > > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/s2dvm1jg37vhrkkkplfknk494c68zfyv
> > > [2] https://github.com/apache/maven-site/pull/1456
> > > [3] https://maven.apache.org/developers/compatibility-plan.html
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Sylwester
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sławomir Jaranowski
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
--
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: [DISCUSS] Minimum Maven prerequisite for ASF plugins: 3.9.0 or 3.6.3?
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
I argument I heard here that was quite compelling was to update the
requirement in order to make it easier to port code to Maven 4.0 (assuming
APIs are now deprecated in 3.10)
2c,
Gary
On Fri, Oct 9, 2026, 05:04 Gerd Aschemann <ge...@aschemann.net> wrote:
> I’d also prefer to nominate a mature version as baseline than a “fresh
> release”.
>
> > On 9. Oct 2026, at 10:33, Hervé Boutemy <hb...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > thinking at it:
> > we documented Maven 3.9 as a minimum "because 3.8 EOL'ed", the same way
> we did earlier
> >
> > IMHO, EOL'ed older version is not the only driver:
> > the key driver is that we have a newer version that is now proven
> rock-solid
> >
> > we went to Maven 3.9 as minimum prerequisite when we had released Maven
> 3.9.10, that was really known as a very good level bugfix confidence
> >
> >
> >
> > to me, it is that approach that we need to keep
> >
> >
> > On 2026/10/09 00:15:02 Hervé Boutemy wrote:
> >> Maven 3.9 as a minimum was already decided and documented in October
> 2025
> >>
> https://github.com/apache/maven-site/blame/master/content/markdown/developers/compatibility-plan.md
> >>
> >> this is a great plan to implement
> >>
> >>
> >> on upgrading minimum to 3.10, it's definitively too early:
> >> remember 3.10 is resolver 2, a transition for Maven 4, and is out just
> a few days ago, we're still at 3.10.0
> >>
> >>
> >> on shared-utils and styled message API:
> >> I get that reverting back from shared-utils to plexus-utils makes
> shared-utils too big on overlapping classes.
> >> Styled message API is the only part of shared-utils that should remain,
> as it is where the code landed to NOT depend on Maven core.
> >>
> >> Why not create a new release of shared-utils that contains just the
> styled message API?
> >> This would remove the overlap with plexus-utils, while not introducing
> a prerequisite on Maven 3.10
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Hervé
> >>
> >> On 2026/10/07 21:32:45 Slawomir Jaranowski wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> Today I will go with 3.10.0 we have new API [1] like
> >>> - MessageBuilderFactory - we can drop maven-shared in many plugins
> >>> - we have java version in JavaToolchain
> >>>
> >>> 3.10.0 was released 2026-09-27 and I can see many issues with it ...
> >>> form some of days 3.10.0 is default on GH runners [2]
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> [1]
> >>>
> https://maven.apache.org/docs/3.10.0/release-notes.html#new-api-and-updates-for-maven-plugins
> >>> [2] https://github.com/actions/runner-images/releases
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, 7 Oct 2026 at 23:09, Sylwester Lachiewicz <
> slachiewicz@apache.org>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> A year ago we discussed the minimum Maven version for ASF plugins [1].
> >>>> Slawomir proposed four options, and his summary on 2025-11-13 lists
> ten
> >>>> +1s for
> >>>> 3.9.0. The compatibility plan was updated accordingly [2][3]:
> >>>>
> >>>> "In October 2025, Maven before 3.8.3 has been marked as EOL, meaning
> that
> >>>> plugins should use 3.9.0 as minimum (as per Mailing List)"
> >>>>
> >>>> Many plugins still declare <prerequisites><maven>3.6.3</maven>, so I
> would
> >>>> like
> >>>> to clarify what that thread decided. Two questions:
> >>>>
> >>>> 1. Was that thread a formal vote, or a show of hands to be confirmed
> by a
> >>>> [VOTE]?
> >>>> 2. Should we raise the prerequisite to 3.9.0 across our plugins, or
> keep
> >>>> the existing 3.6.3 and update the compatibility plan to reflect that?
> >>>>
> >>>> This is only about the outcome of last year's thread. This is only
> about
> >>>> the outcome of last year's thread. It is not Maven 3.10.0 or about
> adopting
> >>>> new APIs.
> >>>>
> >>>> [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/s2dvm1jg37vhrkkkplfknk494c68zfyv
> >>>> [2] https://github.com/apache/maven-site/pull/1456
> >>>> [3] https://maven.apache.org/developers/compatibility-plan.html
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards,
> >>>> Sylwester
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Sławomir Jaranowski
> >>>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> 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
> >
>
> --
> Gerd Aschemann (er/he) --- Veröffentlichen heißt Verändern (Carmen Thomas)
> +49/173/3264070 -- gerd@aschemann.net -- https://aschemann.net
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Minimum Maven prerequisite for ASF plugins: 3.9.0 or 3.6.3?
Posted by Gerd Aschemann <ge...@aschemann.net>.
I’d also prefer to nominate a mature version as baseline than a “fresh release”.
> On 9. Oct 2026, at 10:33, Hervé Boutemy <hb...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> thinking at it:
> we documented Maven 3.9 as a minimum "because 3.8 EOL'ed", the same way we did earlier
>
> IMHO, EOL'ed older version is not the only driver:
> the key driver is that we have a newer version that is now proven rock-solid
>
> we went to Maven 3.9 as minimum prerequisite when we had released Maven 3.9.10, that was really known as a very good level bugfix confidence
>
>
>
> to me, it is that approach that we need to keep
>
>
> On 2026/10/09 00:15:02 Hervé Boutemy wrote:
>> Maven 3.9 as a minimum was already decided and documented in October 2025
>> https://github.com/apache/maven-site/blame/master/content/markdown/developers/compatibility-plan.md
>>
>> this is a great plan to implement
>>
>>
>> on upgrading minimum to 3.10, it's definitively too early:
>> remember 3.10 is resolver 2, a transition for Maven 4, and is out just a few days ago, we're still at 3.10.0
>>
>>
>> on shared-utils and styled message API:
>> I get that reverting back from shared-utils to plexus-utils makes shared-utils too big on overlapping classes.
>> Styled message API is the only part of shared-utils that should remain, as it is where the code landed to NOT depend on Maven core.
>>
>> Why not create a new release of shared-utils that contains just the styled message API?
>> This would remove the overlap with plexus-utils, while not introducing a prerequisite on Maven 3.10
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Hervé
>>
>> On 2026/10/07 21:32:45 Slawomir Jaranowski wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Today I will go with 3.10.0 we have new API [1] like
>>> - MessageBuilderFactory - we can drop maven-shared in many plugins
>>> - we have java version in JavaToolchain
>>>
>>> 3.10.0 was released 2026-09-27 and I can see many issues with it ...
>>> form some of days 3.10.0 is default on GH runners [2]
>>>
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> https://maven.apache.org/docs/3.10.0/release-notes.html#new-api-and-updates-for-maven-plugins
>>> [2] https://github.com/actions/runner-images/releases
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 7 Oct 2026 at 23:09, Sylwester Lachiewicz <sl...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> A year ago we discussed the minimum Maven version for ASF plugins [1].
>>>> Slawomir proposed four options, and his summary on 2025-11-13 lists ten
>>>> +1s for
>>>> 3.9.0. The compatibility plan was updated accordingly [2][3]:
>>>>
>>>> "In October 2025, Maven before 3.8.3 has been marked as EOL, meaning that
>>>> plugins should use 3.9.0 as minimum (as per Mailing List)"
>>>>
>>>> Many plugins still declare <prerequisites><maven>3.6.3</maven>, so I would
>>>> like
>>>> to clarify what that thread decided. Two questions:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Was that thread a formal vote, or a show of hands to be confirmed by a
>>>> [VOTE]?
>>>> 2. Should we raise the prerequisite to 3.9.0 across our plugins, or keep
>>>> the existing 3.6.3 and update the compatibility plan to reflect that?
>>>>
>>>> This is only about the outcome of last year's thread. This is only about
>>>> the outcome of last year's thread. It is not Maven 3.10.0 or about adopting
>>>> new APIs.
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/s2dvm1jg37vhrkkkplfknk494c68zfyv
>>>> [2] https://github.com/apache/maven-site/pull/1456
>>>> [3] https://maven.apache.org/developers/compatibility-plan.html
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Sylwester
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sławomir Jaranowski
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>
--
Gerd Aschemann (er/he) --- Veröffentlichen heißt Verändern (Carmen Thomas)
+49/173/3264070 -- gerd@aschemann.net -- https://aschemann.net
Re: [DISCUSS] Minimum Maven prerequisite for ASF plugins: 3.9.0 or 3.6.3?
Posted by Hervé Boutemy <hb...@apache.org>.
thinking at it:
we documented Maven 3.9 as a minimum "because 3.8 EOL'ed", the same way we did earlier
IMHO, EOL'ed older version is not the only driver:
the key driver is that we have a newer version that is now proven rock-solid
we went to Maven 3.9 as minimum prerequisite when we had released Maven 3.9.10, that was really known as a very good level bugfix confidence
to me, it is that approach that we need to keep
On 2026/10/09 00:15:02 Hervé Boutemy wrote:
> Maven 3.9 as a minimum was already decided and documented in October 2025
> https://github.com/apache/maven-site/blame/master/content/markdown/developers/compatibility-plan.md
>
> this is a great plan to implement
>
>
> on upgrading minimum to 3.10, it's definitively too early:
> remember 3.10 is resolver 2, a transition for Maven 4, and is out just a few days ago, we're still at 3.10.0
>
>
> on shared-utils and styled message API:
> I get that reverting back from shared-utils to plexus-utils makes shared-utils too big on overlapping classes.
> Styled message API is the only part of shared-utils that should remain, as it is where the code landed to NOT depend on Maven core.
>
> Why not create a new release of shared-utils that contains just the styled message API?
> This would remove the overlap with plexus-utils, while not introducing a prerequisite on Maven 3.10
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Hervé
>
> On 2026/10/07 21:32:45 Slawomir Jaranowski wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Today I will go with 3.10.0 we have new API [1] like
> > - MessageBuilderFactory - we can drop maven-shared in many plugins
> > - we have java version in JavaToolchain
> >
> > 3.10.0 was released 2026-09-27 and I can see many issues with it ...
> > form some of days 3.10.0 is default on GH runners [2]
> >
> >
> > [1]
> > https://maven.apache.org/docs/3.10.0/release-notes.html#new-api-and-updates-for-maven-plugins
> > [2] https://github.com/actions/runner-images/releases
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 7 Oct 2026 at 23:09, Sylwester Lachiewicz <sl...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > A year ago we discussed the minimum Maven version for ASF plugins [1].
> > > Slawomir proposed four options, and his summary on 2025-11-13 lists ten
> > > +1s for
> > > 3.9.0. The compatibility plan was updated accordingly [2][3]:
> > >
> > > "In October 2025, Maven before 3.8.3 has been marked as EOL, meaning that
> > > plugins should use 3.9.0 as minimum (as per Mailing List)"
> > >
> > > Many plugins still declare <prerequisites><maven>3.6.3</maven>, so I would
> > > like
> > > to clarify what that thread decided. Two questions:
> > >
> > > 1. Was that thread a formal vote, or a show of hands to be confirmed by a
> > > [VOTE]?
> > > 2. Should we raise the prerequisite to 3.9.0 across our plugins, or keep
> > > the existing 3.6.3 and update the compatibility plan to reflect that?
> > >
> > > This is only about the outcome of last year's thread. This is only about
> > > the outcome of last year's thread. It is not Maven 3.10.0 or about adopting
> > > new APIs.
> > >
> > > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/s2dvm1jg37vhrkkkplfknk494c68zfyv
> > > [2] https://github.com/apache/maven-site/pull/1456
> > > [3] https://maven.apache.org/developers/compatibility-plan.html
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Sylwester
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sławomir Jaranowski
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: [DISCUSS] Minimum Maven prerequisite for ASF plugins: 3.9.0 or 3.6.3?
Posted by Hervé Boutemy <hb...@apache.org>.
Maven 3.9 as a minimum was already decided and documented in October 2025
https://github.com/apache/maven-site/blame/master/content/markdown/developers/compatibility-plan.md
this is a great plan to implement
on upgrading minimum to 3.10, it's definitively too early:
remember 3.10 is resolver 2, a transition for Maven 4, and is out just a few days ago, we're still at 3.10.0
on shared-utils and styled message API:
I get that reverting back from shared-utils to plexus-utils makes shared-utils too big on overlapping classes.
Styled message API is the only part of shared-utils that should remain, as it is where the code landed to NOT depend on Maven core.
Why not create a new release of shared-utils that contains just the styled message API?
This would remove the overlap with plexus-utils, while not introducing a prerequisite on Maven 3.10
Regards,
Hervé
On 2026/10/07 21:32:45 Slawomir Jaranowski wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Today I will go with 3.10.0 we have new API [1] like
> - MessageBuilderFactory - we can drop maven-shared in many plugins
> - we have java version in JavaToolchain
>
> 3.10.0 was released 2026-09-27 and I can see many issues with it ...
> form some of days 3.10.0 is default on GH runners [2]
>
>
> [1]
> https://maven.apache.org/docs/3.10.0/release-notes.html#new-api-and-updates-for-maven-plugins
> [2] https://github.com/actions/runner-images/releases
>
>
> On Wed, 7 Oct 2026 at 23:09, Sylwester Lachiewicz <sl...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > A year ago we discussed the minimum Maven version for ASF plugins [1].
> > Slawomir proposed four options, and his summary on 2025-11-13 lists ten
> > +1s for
> > 3.9.0. The compatibility plan was updated accordingly [2][3]:
> >
> > "In October 2025, Maven before 3.8.3 has been marked as EOL, meaning that
> > plugins should use 3.9.0 as minimum (as per Mailing List)"
> >
> > Many plugins still declare <prerequisites><maven>3.6.3</maven>, so I would
> > like
> > to clarify what that thread decided. Two questions:
> >
> > 1. Was that thread a formal vote, or a show of hands to be confirmed by a
> > [VOTE]?
> > 2. Should we raise the prerequisite to 3.9.0 across our plugins, or keep
> > the existing 3.6.3 and update the compatibility plan to reflect that?
> >
> > This is only about the outcome of last year's thread. This is only about
> > the outcome of last year's thread. It is not Maven 3.10.0 or about adopting
> > new APIs.
> >
> > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/s2dvm1jg37vhrkkkplfknk494c68zfyv
> > [2] https://github.com/apache/maven-site/pull/1456
> > [3] https://maven.apache.org/developers/compatibility-plan.html
> >
> > Regards,
> > Sylwester
> >
>
>
> --
> Sławomir Jaranowski
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Minimum Maven prerequisite for ASF plugins: 3.9.0 or 3.6.3?
Posted by Matthias Bünger via dev <de...@maven.apache.org>.
Morning,
I‘m with both of you and the core question for me is: What are we doing with 3.9?
If we keep continue maintaining it, then I think the minimum version has to be 3.9.x. If not (to dont maintain four versions of Maven any longer) then I would like to set the minimum version to 3.10.x for best compatibility / preperation for users who aim (at what point doesnt matter) for an easy switch to 4.0.0, due the changes to resolver etc.
@Sylvester To come back to your question: For me, the thread back then was a discussion, not a vote.
Enjoy your day everyone
Matthias
Sent from mobile
> Am 07.10.2026 um 23:58 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>:
>
> Hi
>
> think we have to make min=oldest supported branch/release otherwise it will
> bite us for good reasons
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau <https://x.com/rmannibucau> | .NET Blog
> <https://dotnetbirdie.github.io/> | Blog <https://rmannibucau.github.io/> | Old
> Blog <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> <https://www.packtpub.com/en-us/product/java-ee-8-high-performance-9781788473064>
> Javaccino <https://javaccino.dev/> founder (Java/.NET service - contact via
> linkedin)
>
>
>> Le mer. 7 oct. 2026 à 23:33, Slawomir Jaranowski <s....@gmail.com> a
>> écrit :
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Today I will go with 3.10.0 we have new API [1] like
>> - MessageBuilderFactory - we can drop maven-shared in many plugins
>> - we have java version in JavaToolchain
>>
>> 3.10.0 was released 2026-09-27 and I can see many issues with it ...
>> form some of days 3.10.0 is default on GH runners [2]
>>
>>
>> [1]
>>
>> https://maven.apache.org/docs/3.10.0/release-notes.html#new-api-and-updates-for-maven-plugins
>> [2] https://github.com/actions/runner-images/releases
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 7 Oct 2026 at 23:09, Sylwester Lachiewicz <sl...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> A year ago we discussed the minimum Maven version for ASF plugins [1].
>>> Slawomir proposed four options, and his summary on 2025-11-13 lists ten
>>> +1s for
>>> 3.9.0. The compatibility plan was updated accordingly [2][3]:
>>>
>>> "In October 2025, Maven before 3.8.3 has been marked as EOL, meaning that
>>> plugins should use 3.9.0 as minimum (as per Mailing List)"
>>>
>>> Many plugins still declare <prerequisites><maven>3.6.3</maven>, so I
>> would
>>> like
>>> to clarify what that thread decided. Two questions:
>>>
>>> 1. Was that thread a formal vote, or a show of hands to be confirmed by a
>>> [VOTE]?
>>> 2. Should we raise the prerequisite to 3.9.0 across our plugins, or keep
>>> the existing 3.6.3 and update the compatibility plan to reflect that?
>>>
>>> This is only about the outcome of last year's thread. This is only about
>>> the outcome of last year's thread. It is not Maven 3.10.0 or about
>> adopting
>>> new APIs.
>>>
>>> [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/s2dvm1jg37vhrkkkplfknk494c68zfyv
>>> [2] https://github.com/apache/maven-site/pull/1456
>>> [3] https://maven.apache.org/developers/compatibility-plan.html
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Sylwester
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sławomir Jaranowski
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Minimum Maven prerequisite for ASF plugins: 3.9.0 or 3.6.3?
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
Hi
think we have to make min=oldest supported branch/release otherwise it will
bite us for good reasons
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://x.com/rmannibucau> | .NET Blog
<https://dotnetbirdie.github.io/> | Blog <https://rmannibucau.github.io/> | Old
Blog <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
<https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
<https://www.packtpub.com/en-us/product/java-ee-8-high-performance-9781788473064>
Javaccino <https://javaccino.dev/> founder (Java/.NET service - contact via
linkedin)
Le mer. 7 oct. 2026 à 23:33, Slawomir Jaranowski <s....@gmail.com> a
écrit :
> Hi,
>
> Today I will go with 3.10.0 we have new API [1] like
> - MessageBuilderFactory - we can drop maven-shared in many plugins
> - we have java version in JavaToolchain
>
> 3.10.0 was released 2026-09-27 and I can see many issues with it ...
> form some of days 3.10.0 is default on GH runners [2]
>
>
> [1]
>
> https://maven.apache.org/docs/3.10.0/release-notes.html#new-api-and-updates-for-maven-plugins
> [2] https://github.com/actions/runner-images/releases
>
>
> On Wed, 7 Oct 2026 at 23:09, Sylwester Lachiewicz <sl...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > A year ago we discussed the minimum Maven version for ASF plugins [1].
> > Slawomir proposed four options, and his summary on 2025-11-13 lists ten
> > +1s for
> > 3.9.0. The compatibility plan was updated accordingly [2][3]:
> >
> > "In October 2025, Maven before 3.8.3 has been marked as EOL, meaning that
> > plugins should use 3.9.0 as minimum (as per Mailing List)"
> >
> > Many plugins still declare <prerequisites><maven>3.6.3</maven>, so I
> would
> > like
> > to clarify what that thread decided. Two questions:
> >
> > 1. Was that thread a formal vote, or a show of hands to be confirmed by a
> > [VOTE]?
> > 2. Should we raise the prerequisite to 3.9.0 across our plugins, or keep
> > the existing 3.6.3 and update the compatibility plan to reflect that?
> >
> > This is only about the outcome of last year's thread. This is only about
> > the outcome of last year's thread. It is not Maven 3.10.0 or about
> adopting
> > new APIs.
> >
> > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/s2dvm1jg37vhrkkkplfknk494c68zfyv
> > [2] https://github.com/apache/maven-site/pull/1456
> > [3] https://maven.apache.org/developers/compatibility-plan.html
> >
> > Regards,
> > Sylwester
> >
>
>
> --
> Sławomir Jaranowski
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Minimum Maven prerequisite for ASF plugins: 3.9.0 or 3.6.3?
Posted by Slawomir Jaranowski <s....@gmail.com>.
Hi,
Today I will go with 3.10.0 we have new API [1] like
- MessageBuilderFactory - we can drop maven-shared in many plugins
- we have java version in JavaToolchain
3.10.0 was released 2026-09-27 and I can see many issues with it ...
form some of days 3.10.0 is default on GH runners [2]
[1]
https://maven.apache.org/docs/3.10.0/release-notes.html#new-api-and-updates-for-maven-plugins
[2] https://github.com/actions/runner-images/releases
On Wed, 7 Oct 2026 at 23:09, Sylwester Lachiewicz <sl...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> A year ago we discussed the minimum Maven version for ASF plugins [1].
> Slawomir proposed four options, and his summary on 2025-11-13 lists ten
> +1s for
> 3.9.0. The compatibility plan was updated accordingly [2][3]:
>
> "In October 2025, Maven before 3.8.3 has been marked as EOL, meaning that
> plugins should use 3.9.0 as minimum (as per Mailing List)"
>
> Many plugins still declare <prerequisites><maven>3.6.3</maven>, so I would
> like
> to clarify what that thread decided. Two questions:
>
> 1. Was that thread a formal vote, or a show of hands to be confirmed by a
> [VOTE]?
> 2. Should we raise the prerequisite to 3.9.0 across our plugins, or keep
> the existing 3.6.3 and update the compatibility plan to reflect that?
>
> This is only about the outcome of last year's thread. This is only about
> the outcome of last year's thread. It is not Maven 3.10.0 or about adopting
> new APIs.
>
> [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/s2dvm1jg37vhrkkkplfknk494c68zfyv
> [2] https://github.com/apache/maven-site/pull/1456
> [3] https://maven.apache.org/developers/compatibility-plan.html
>
> Regards,
> Sylwester
>
--
Sławomir Jaranowski