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 2014/02/23 19:06:43 UTC
Branch the parent pom hierarchy for Java 1.6 + Maven 3
I propose to make releases of our parent stack that are suitable for
components and plugins that are making the leap to Java 1.6 and Maven
3 as their base requirements.
What do people think is the right approach in terms of what stays on
trunk and what goes on a branch, and whether to do anything
distinctive to the version numbers?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Branch the parent pom hierarchy for Java 1.6 + Maven 3
Posted by Jason van Zyl <ja...@takari.io>.
On Feb 23, 2014, at 12:38 PM, Michael Osipov <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Just had a hard time to find this information on the (front) page.
> I think a mere: 2014-02-18 End of Life EoL notes, announce is not enough. I would have expected something like this on the front page:
>
> Looking for Maven 2?
> // Either some text
> // or the link to the EoL announcement.
>
Feel free to edit. I'm working on trying to write up better release notes detailing the changes. I probably won't be making any changes to the front-page today before the announcement of 3.2.1.
>>> 2. If you align plugins with a 3.0 baseline, I would bump at least a minor
>>> version, maybe even a major one.
>>
>>
>> I think bumping a major version would be fair and proper... But we don't
>> have a formal policy yet, and a minor version bump might be valid too.
>
> Beside the general draft [1] we do already have two good policies. Even one at Apache APR [2], and semver.org.
>
> Micahel
>
> [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/Version+number+policy
> [2] https://apr.apache.org/versioning.html#strategy
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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, Apache Maven
http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
http://twitter.com/takari_io
---------------------------------------------------------
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is,
the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
-- John Kenneth Galbraith
Re: Branch the parent pom hierarchy for Java 1.6 + Maven 3
Posted by Anders Hammar <an...@hammar.net>.
+1 (possibly set the deps to 3.0.4 instead, and not 3.0.5)
I don't think we need to branch the parent poms. That will just create
unnecessary complexity. As you pointed out, plugins can continue to use the
Q-1 version of the parent if the want to go with 2.x-compat (and
add/override plugin upgrades/configs if needed).
I'm also very positive to "avoid a disorganized process of individual
plugins"!
/Anders
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 10:15 PM, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>wrote:
> I think that Michael might be over-reading my intentions. I am not
> trying to start a short-term avalanche of moving components to require
> 3.0.5. My idea is:
>
> 1. We release parents that set up the 3.0.5 dependencies. Call that
> version Q.
> 2. Any maintainer who feels inclined to release a 2.2.x-compatible
> component or plugin is welcome to continue to use parent Q-1.
> 3. Any maintainer who feels inclined to move a component to the new
> regime changes the parent version to Q.
>
> As far as I am concerned, it might take _years_ before everything
> under the auspices of this project moves to require 3.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Michael Osipov <mi...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > Am 2014-02-23 21:20, schrieb Stephen Connolly:
> >
> >> On Sunday, 23 February 2014, Michael Osipov <mi...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Am 2014-02-23 19:06, schrieb Benson Margulies:
> >>>
> >>>> I propose to make releases of our parent stack that are suitable for
> >>>> components and plugins that are making the leap to Java 1.6 and Maven
> >>>> 3 as their base requirements.
> >>>>
> >>>> What do people think is the right approach in terms of what stays on
> >>>> trunk and what goes on a branch, and whether to do anything
> >>>> distinctive to the version numbers?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Finally, someone's stepping up for such a good change. Though, I think
> >>> some important stuff needs to be considered first:
> >>>
> >>> 1. Announce 2.x EOL and give people at least 3 months to switch.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Already done and site updated
> >
> >
> > Just had a hard time to find this information on the (front) page.
> > I think a mere: 2014-02-18 End of Life EoL notes, announce is not
> enough. I
> > would have expected something like this on the front page:
> >
> > Looking for Maven 2?
> > // Either some text
> > // or the link to the EoL announcement.
> >
> >
> >>> 2. If you align plugins with a 3.0 baseline, I would bump at least a
> >>> minor
> >>> version, maybe even a major one.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I think bumping a major version would be fair and proper... But we don't
> >> have a formal policy yet, and a minor version bump might be valid too.
> >
> >
> > Beside the general draft [1] we do already have two good policies. Even
> one
> > at Apache APR [2], and semver.org.
> >
> > Micahel
> >
> > [1]
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/Version+number+policy
> > [2] https://apr.apache.org/versioning.html#strategy
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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: Branch the parent pom hierarchy for Java 1.6 + Maven 3
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
I think that Michael might be over-reading my intentions. I am not
trying to start a short-term avalanche of moving components to require
3.0.5. My idea is:
1. We release parents that set up the 3.0.5 dependencies. Call that version Q.
2. Any maintainer who feels inclined to release a 2.2.x-compatible
component or plugin is welcome to continue to use parent Q-1.
3. Any maintainer who feels inclined to move a component to the new
regime changes the parent version to Q.
As far as I am concerned, it might take _years_ before everything
under the auspices of this project moves to require 3.
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Michael Osipov <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
> Am 2014-02-23 21:20, schrieb Stephen Connolly:
>
>> On Sunday, 23 February 2014, Michael Osipov <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Am 2014-02-23 19:06, schrieb Benson Margulies:
>>>
>>>> I propose to make releases of our parent stack that are suitable for
>>>> components and plugins that are making the leap to Java 1.6 and Maven
>>>> 3 as their base requirements.
>>>>
>>>> What do people think is the right approach in terms of what stays on
>>>> trunk and what goes on a branch, and whether to do anything
>>>> distinctive to the version numbers?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Finally, someone's stepping up for such a good change. Though, I think
>>> some important stuff needs to be considered first:
>>>
>>> 1. Announce 2.x EOL and give people at least 3 months to switch.
>>
>>
>>
>> Already done and site updated
>
>
> Just had a hard time to find this information on the (front) page.
> I think a mere: 2014-02-18 End of Life EoL notes, announce is not enough. I
> would have expected something like this on the front page:
>
> Looking for Maven 2?
> // Either some text
> // or the link to the EoL announcement.
>
>
>>> 2. If you align plugins with a 3.0 baseline, I would bump at least a
>>> minor
>>> version, maybe even a major one.
>>
>>
>>
>> I think bumping a major version would be fair and proper... But we don't
>> have a formal policy yet, and a minor version bump might be valid too.
>
>
> Beside the general draft [1] we do already have two good policies. Even one
> at Apache APR [2], and semver.org.
>
> Micahel
>
> [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/Version+number+policy
> [2] https://apr.apache.org/versioning.html#strategy
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Branch the parent pom hierarchy for Java 1.6 + Maven 3
Posted by Michael Osipov <mi...@apache.org>.
Am 2014-02-23 21:20, schrieb Stephen Connolly:
> On Sunday, 23 February 2014, Michael Osipov <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Am 2014-02-23 19:06, schrieb Benson Margulies:
>>
>>> I propose to make releases of our parent stack that are suitable for
>>> components and plugins that are making the leap to Java 1.6 and Maven
>>> 3 as their base requirements.
>>>
>>> What do people think is the right approach in terms of what stays on
>>> trunk and what goes on a branch, and whether to do anything
>>> distinctive to the version numbers?
>>>
>>
>> Finally, someone's stepping up for such a good change. Though, I think
>> some important stuff needs to be considered first:
>>
>> 1. Announce 2.x EOL and give people at least 3 months to switch.
>
>
> Already done and site updated
Just had a hard time to find this information on the (front) page.
I think a mere: 2014-02-18 End of Life EoL notes, announce is not
enough. I would have expected something like this on the front page:
Looking for Maven 2?
// Either some text
// or the link to the EoL announcement.
>> 2. If you align plugins with a 3.0 baseline, I would bump at least a minor
>> version, maybe even a major one.
>
>
> I think bumping a major version would be fair and proper... But we don't
> have a formal policy yet, and a minor version bump might be valid too.
Beside the general draft [1] we do already have two good policies. Even
one at Apache APR [2], and semver.org.
Micahel
[1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/Version+number+policy
[2] https://apr.apache.org/versioning.html#strategy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Branch the parent pom hierarchy for Java 1.6 + Maven 3
Posted by Baptiste Mathus <bm...@batmat.net>.
Le 23 févr. 2014 21:20, "Stephen Connolly" <st...@gmail.com>
a écrit :
>
> On Sunday, 23 February 2014, Michael Osipov <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Am 2014-02-23 19:06, schrieb Benson Margulies:
> >
> >> I propose to make releases of our parent stack that are suitable for
> >> components and plugins that are making the leap to Java 1.6 and Maven
> >> 3 as their base requirements.
> >>
> >> What do people think is the right approach in terms of what stays on
> >> trunk and what goes on a branch, and whether to do anything
> >> distinctive to the version numbers?
> >>
> >
> > Finally, someone's stepping up for such a good change. Though, I think
> > some important stuff needs to be considered first:
> >
> > 1. Announce 2.x EOL and give people at least 3 months to switch.
>
>
> Already done and site updated
Was there also an announce on the users list? I couldn't find it. I think
it would also be a good thing to do.
Re: Branch the parent pom hierarchy for Java 1.6 + Maven 3
Posted by Stephen Connolly <st...@gmail.com>.
On Sunday, 23 February 2014, Michael Osipov <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
> Am 2014-02-23 19:06, schrieb Benson Margulies:
>
>> I propose to make releases of our parent stack that are suitable for
>> components and plugins that are making the leap to Java 1.6 and Maven
>> 3 as their base requirements.
>>
>> What do people think is the right approach in terms of what stays on
>> trunk and what goes on a branch, and whether to do anything
>> distinctive to the version numbers?
>>
>
> Finally, someone's stepping up for such a good change. Though, I think
> some important stuff needs to be considered first:
>
> 1. Announce 2.x EOL and give people at least 3 months to switch.
Already done and site updated
> 2. If you align plugins with a 3.0 baseline, I would bump at least a minor
> version, maybe even a major one.
I think bumping a major version would be fair and proper... But we don't
have a formal policy yet, and a minor version bump might be valid too.
>
> Michael
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
>
--
Sent from my phone
Re: Branch the parent pom hierarchy for Java 1.6 + Maven 3
Posted by Michael Osipov <mi...@apache.org>.
Am 2014-02-23 19:06, schrieb Benson Margulies:
> I propose to make releases of our parent stack that are suitable for
> components and plugins that are making the leap to Java 1.6 and Maven
> 3 as their base requirements.
>
> What do people think is the right approach in terms of what stays on
> trunk and what goes on a branch, and whether to do anything
> distinctive to the version numbers?
Finally, someone's stepping up for such a good change. Though, I think
some important stuff needs to be considered first:
1. Announce 2.x EOL and give people at least 3 months to switch.
2. If you align plugins with a 3.0 baseline, I would bump at least a
minor version, maybe even a major one.
Michael
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Branch the parent pom hierarchy for Java 1.6 + Maven 3
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
Stephen, can I possibly get you to respond to the the questions about branches (or not) and version numbers for the POM's?
On February 23, 2014 2:00:24 PM EST, Stephen Connolly <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Well let's get the maven dep up to at least 3.0.4.
>
>Let's give users an announce that we are moving to only checking java
>1.5
>compat via animal sniffer and that we will be building plugins with 1.6
>or
>1.7
>
>On Sunday, 23 February 2014, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>> For this thread, I'd be content to get a plan for how to manage the
>> poms to reflect the EOL of 2.x. The actual content of those poms can
>> argued over by committing an initial proposal.
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 1:50 PM, Benson Margulies
><bimargulies@gmail.com<javascript:;>>
>> wrote:
>> > I would have expected our first step would be to set source and
>target
>> > to 1.6, and move the Maven core dependencies to 3.0.x. I don't see
>why
>> > the fact that the core was compiled with target=1.5 would have any
>> > impact here.
>> >
>> > I'd like to avoid a disorganized process of individual plugins and
>> > components getting complex stuff into their poms, each one a bit
>> > different.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Stephen Connolly
>> > <stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
>> >> Keep in mind that maven 3.0-3.1.x are still java 1.5 and we
>haven't put
>> a
>> >> version policy in place.
>> >>
>> >> Personally speaking I'm fine with plugins requiring java 1.6 and
>maven
>> >> 3.2.1 as a minimum, but I'd rather see 3.3.x get some legs first
>and I
>> >> suspect we'll have a few 3.2.x releases as we have EOL'd 2.x
>> >>
>> >> On Sunday, 23 February 2014, Benson Margulies
><bimargulies@gmail.com<javascript:;>>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> I propose to make releases of our parent stack that are suitable
>for
>> >>> components and plugins that are making the leap to Java 1.6 and
>Maven
>> >>> 3 as their base requirements.
>> >>>
>> >>> What do people think is the right approach in terms of what stays
>on
>> >>> trunk and what goes on a branch, and whether to do anything
>> >>> distinctive to the version numbers?
>> >>>
>> >>>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org<javascript:;><javascript:;>
>> >>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>dev-help@maven.apache.org<javascript:;><javascript:;>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Sent from my phone
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
><javascript:;>
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
><javascript:;>
>>
>>
>
>--
>Sent from my phone
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Re: Branch the parent pom hierarchy for Java 1.6 + Maven 3
Posted by Stephen Connolly <st...@gmail.com>.
Well let's get the maven dep up to at least 3.0.4.
Let's give users an announce that we are moving to only checking java 1.5
compat via animal sniffer and that we will be building plugins with 1.6 or
1.7
On Sunday, 23 February 2014, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> For this thread, I'd be content to get a plan for how to manage the
> poms to reflect the EOL of 2.x. The actual content of those poms can
> argued over by committing an initial proposal.
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 1:50 PM, Benson Margulies <bimargulies@gmail.com<javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> > I would have expected our first step would be to set source and target
> > to 1.6, and move the Maven core dependencies to 3.0.x. I don't see why
> > the fact that the core was compiled with target=1.5 would have any
> > impact here.
> >
> > I'd like to avoid a disorganized process of individual plugins and
> > components getting complex stuff into their poms, each one a bit
> > different.
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Stephen Connolly
> > <stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >> Keep in mind that maven 3.0-3.1.x are still java 1.5 and we haven't put
> a
> >> version policy in place.
> >>
> >> Personally speaking I'm fine with plugins requiring java 1.6 and maven
> >> 3.2.1 as a minimum, but I'd rather see 3.3.x get some legs first and I
> >> suspect we'll have a few 3.2.x releases as we have EOL'd 2.x
> >>
> >> On Sunday, 23 February 2014, Benson Margulies <bimargulies@gmail.com<javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I propose to make releases of our parent stack that are suitable for
> >>> components and plugins that are making the leap to Java 1.6 and Maven
> >>> 3 as their base requirements.
> >>>
> >>> What do people think is the right approach in terms of what stays on
> >>> trunk and what goes on a branch, and whether to do anything
> >>> distinctive to the version numbers?
> >>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org<javascript:;><javascript:;>
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org<javascript:;><javascript:;>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Sent from my phone
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org <javascript:;>
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org <javascript:;>
>
>
--
Sent from my phone
Re: Branch the parent pom hierarchy for Java 1.6 + Maven 3
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
For this thread, I'd be content to get a plan for how to manage the
poms to reflect the EOL of 2.x. The actual content of those poms can
argued over by committing an initial proposal.
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 1:50 PM, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would have expected our first step would be to set source and target
> to 1.6, and move the Maven core dependencies to 3.0.x. I don't see why
> the fact that the core was compiled with target=1.5 would have any
> impact here.
>
> I'd like to avoid a disorganized process of individual plugins and
> components getting complex stuff into their poms, each one a bit
> different.
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Stephen Connolly
> <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Keep in mind that maven 3.0-3.1.x are still java 1.5 and we haven't put a
>> version policy in place.
>>
>> Personally speaking I'm fine with plugins requiring java 1.6 and maven
>> 3.2.1 as a minimum, but I'd rather see 3.3.x get some legs first and I
>> suspect we'll have a few 3.2.x releases as we have EOL'd 2.x
>>
>> On Sunday, 23 February 2014, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I propose to make releases of our parent stack that are suitable for
>>> components and plugins that are making the leap to Java 1.6 and Maven
>>> 3 as their base requirements.
>>>
>>> What do people think is the right approach in terms of what stays on
>>> trunk and what goes on a branch, and whether to do anything
>>> distinctive to the version numbers?
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org <javascript:;>
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org <javascript:;>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Sent from my phone
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Branch the parent pom hierarchy for Java 1.6 + Maven 3
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
I would have expected our first step would be to set source and target
to 1.6, and move the Maven core dependencies to 3.0.x. I don't see why
the fact that the core was compiled with target=1.5 would have any
impact here.
I'd like to avoid a disorganized process of individual plugins and
components getting complex stuff into their poms, each one a bit
different.
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Stephen Connolly
<st...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Keep in mind that maven 3.0-3.1.x are still java 1.5 and we haven't put a
> version policy in place.
>
> Personally speaking I'm fine with plugins requiring java 1.6 and maven
> 3.2.1 as a minimum, but I'd rather see 3.3.x get some legs first and I
> suspect we'll have a few 3.2.x releases as we have EOL'd 2.x
>
> On Sunday, 23 February 2014, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I propose to make releases of our parent stack that are suitable for
>> components and plugins that are making the leap to Java 1.6 and Maven
>> 3 as their base requirements.
>>
>> What do people think is the right approach in terms of what stays on
>> trunk and what goes on a branch, and whether to do anything
>> distinctive to the version numbers?
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org <javascript:;>
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org <javascript:;>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Sent from my phone
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Branch the parent pom hierarchy for Java 1.6 + Maven 3
Posted by Stephen Connolly <st...@gmail.com>.
Keep in mind that maven 3.0-3.1.x are still java 1.5 and we haven't put a
version policy in place.
Personally speaking I'm fine with plugins requiring java 1.6 and maven
3.2.1 as a minimum, but I'd rather see 3.3.x get some legs first and I
suspect we'll have a few 3.2.x releases as we have EOL'd 2.x
On Sunday, 23 February 2014, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I propose to make releases of our parent stack that are suitable for
> components and plugins that are making the leap to Java 1.6 and Maven
> 3 as their base requirements.
>
> What do people think is the right approach in terms of what stays on
> trunk and what goes on a branch, and whether to do anything
> distinctive to the version numbers?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org <javascript:;>
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org <javascript:;>
>
>
--
Sent from my phone