You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@maven.apache.org by Kristian Rosenvold <kr...@zenior.no> on 2014/09/27 19:23:12 UTC
[DISCUSS] Move everything to 1.6
We moved core to 1.6 some time ago. Time to move everything else as well ?
Kristian (Who's ready to say "1.7" but we stop by 1.6 first :)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Move everything to 1.6
Posted by Jason van Zyl <ja...@takari.io>.
+1
On Sep 27, 2014, at 1:23 PM, Kristian Rosenvold <kr...@zenior.no> wrote:
> We moved core to 1.6 some time ago. Time to move everything else as well ?
>
> Kristian (Who's ready to say "1.7" but we stop by 1.6 first :)
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
---------------------------------------------------------
Be not afraid of growing slowly, be only afraid of standing still.
-- Chinese Proverb
Re: [DISCUSS] Move everything to 1.6
Posted by Kristian Rosenvold <kr...@gmail.com>.
Michael; we are heavily into jdk7 file-system related features, most
of which is covered by feature detection/jdk detection. Plexus
requires 1.7 to build but still supports 1.5. I'll split a bottle of
champagne the day we can drop 1.5/1.6 support from plexus and various
utility projects with reflection, it's a disaster.
2014-09-27 19:41 GMT+02:00 Michael Osipov <19...@gmx.net>:
>
>> We moved core to 1.6 some time ago. Time to move everything else as well ?
>>
>> Kristian (Who's ready to say "1.7" but we stop by 1.6 first :)
>
>
> I would favor the move to Java 1.7 if we make strong use of NIO2 for file operations. A lot of pain should go away.
>
> Michael
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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] Move everything to 1.6
Posted by Kristian Rosenvold <kr...@gmail.com>.
Let's use the [discuss] thread constructively then; do we call a
[VOTE] to move *everything* to 1.7 ? I think we are ready to move to
1.6 without actually having a vote, so if you for some reason oppose
the move to 1.6 please say so in the "discuss" thread or I will simply
conclude that we move everything to 1.6 once everyone has had their
say.
For the scope of this discussion I think it's safe to assume that
anyone calling for 1.7 *also* accepts 1.6.
Kristian
2014-09-27 19:46 GMT+02:00 Igor Fedorenko <ig...@ifedorenko.com>:
> Agree. 1.7 makes more sense at this point.
>
> On September 27, 2014 1:41:31 PM EDT, Michael Osipov <19...@gmx.net> wrote:
>>
>>> We moved core to 1.6 some time ago. Time to move everything else as
>>well ?
>>>
>>> Kristian (Who's ready to say "1.7" but we stop by 1.6 first :)
>>
>>
>>I would favor the move to Java 1.7 if we make strong use of NIO2 for
>>file operations. A lot of pain should go away.
>>
>>Michael
>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
> --
> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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] Move everything to 1.6
Posted by Igor Fedorenko <ig...@ifedorenko.com>.
Agree. 1.7 makes more sense at this point.
On September 27, 2014 1:41:31 PM EDT, Michael Osipov <19...@gmx.net> wrote:
>
>> We moved core to 1.6 some time ago. Time to move everything else as
>well ?
>>
>> Kristian (Who's ready to say "1.7" but we stop by 1.6 first :)
>
>
>I would favor the move to Java 1.7 if we make strong use of NIO2 for
>file operations. A lot of pain should go away.
>
>Michael
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Move everything to 1.6
Posted by Michael Osipov <19...@gmx.net>.
> We moved core to 1.6 some time ago. Time to move everything else as well ?
>
> Kristian (Who's ready to say "1.7" but we stop by 1.6 first :)
I would favor the move to Java 1.7 if we make strong use of NIO2 for file operations. A lot of pain should go away.
Michael
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Move everything to 1.6
Posted by Mark Derricutt <ma...@talios.com>.
+2
On 28 Sep 2014, at 21:36, Robert Scholte wrote:
> I would go one step further: make the toolchains.xml part of the Maven
> distribution, aside the settings.xml with the same amount of
> documentation.
> That should make it clear how to divide the Maven Runtime JDK from the
> Compile JDK.
>
> Robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Move everything to 1.6
Posted by Mirko Friedenhagen <mf...@gmail.com>.
+1 for making toolchains part of the distribution.
Regards
Mirko
--
Sent from my mobile
On Sep 28, 2014 10:36 AM, "Robert Scholte" <rf...@apache.org> wrote:
> I would go one step further: make the toolchains.xml part of the Maven
> distribution, aside the settings.xml with the same amount of documentation.
> That should make it clear how to divide the Maven Runtime JDK from the
> Compile JDK.
>
> Robert
>
> Op Sun, 28 Sep 2014 05:02:04 +0200 schreef Mark Derricutt <mark@talios.com
> >:
>
> On 28 Sep 2014, at 7:27, Kristian Rosenvold wrote:
>>
>> But I think coupling java version -> maven version like you're doing
>>> is basically flawed; for most users this is not about java versions.
>>>
>>
>> With this - I think further promotion and support of the
>> maven-toolchains-plugin might be handy. The JVM used to -run- maven doesn't
>> need to be the one used to -compile- your applications.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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] Move everything to 1.6
Posted by Robert Scholte <rf...@apache.org>.
I would go one step further: make the toolchains.xml part of the Maven
distribution, aside the settings.xml with the same amount of documentation.
That should make it clear how to divide the Maven Runtime JDK from the
Compile JDK.
Robert
Op Sun, 28 Sep 2014 05:02:04 +0200 schreef Mark Derricutt
<ma...@talios.com>:
> On 28 Sep 2014, at 7:27, Kristian Rosenvold wrote:
>
>> But I think coupling java version -> maven version like you're doing
>> is basically flawed; for most users this is not about java versions.
>
> With this - I think further promotion and support of the
> maven-toolchains-plugin might be handy. The JVM used to -run- maven
> doesn't need to be the one used to -compile- your applications.
>
> Mark
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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] Move everything to 1.6
Posted by Mark Derricutt <ma...@talios.com>.
On 28 Sep 2014, at 7:27, Kristian Rosenvold wrote:
> But I think coupling java version -> maven version like you're doing
> is basically flawed; for most users this is not about java versions.
With this - I think further promotion and support of the
maven-toolchains-plugin might be handy. The JVM used to -run- maven
doesn't need to be the one used to -compile- your applications.
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Move everything to 1.6
Posted by Manfred Moser <ma...@mosabuam.com>.
+100 .. I totally agree.
RIP Maven 2.x
EOL Maven 3.0.x very soon
And more importantly... update the website and clearly document that state.
manfred
Stephen Connolly wrote on 29.09.2014 12:35:
> well one thing I would like us to do better is communicate exactly which
> release lines of Maven we are actively maintaining and what we mean by such
> active maintenance.
>
> My personal view is
>
> * if there has been no commit to a release line for > 1 year then it is not
> in active maintenance
>
> * if there has been no commit to a release line for > 2 years (and
> consequently no release) then we should consider that line potentially
> dead... releasing core is tricky enough, so if we have not cut a release of
> an older line for more than 2 years then the hurdle to actually cut a
> release may be sufficiently high as to prevent any releases.
>
> If we take that criteria into account, 3.0.5 is nearing the end of life.
> 3.1.1 is probably not being actively maintained.
>
> So I would be looking to mark the 3.0.x line EOL either now or in 5 months
>
> I would be looking to say 3.1.x is "security fixes only" next month
>
> Consequently I would be happy to say that core plugins can pick 3.2.x as
> their baseline and be done with it... if people feel strongly against
> that... well, if they are committers then I will vote on their releases
> from a "stable" branch... if they are not committers, then I will apply
> their patches and canvas to make them committers...
>
> For the project's sake, in my view, we have to start clearing out the
> cruft... if that means JDK6 as the minimum for everything... fine! if that
> means Maven 3.2.1 as the minimum for everything, even better...
>
> Users will be stubborn and use the older versions as long as they can...
> but it is increasingly difficult for use - as developers - to develop while
> maintaining support for those older jdks and the range of maven cores. If
> we can simplify then we should be able to progress faster...
>
> Of course the only rider is that I seem perpetually stuck in side projects
> and work projects and never seem to get as much time as i would like to
> work on Maven... so I'm not going to force anything.... ultimately it's the
> committers that drive this project... I'm just putting my voice out there
> for the active committers to take heed of or ignore as they see fit!
>
> On 29 September 2014 20:21, Dennis Lundberg <de...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Stephen Connolly
>> <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Well why I recall we said last time was that we'd only support the jdk
>> > supported by the supported versions of maven
>> >
>> > So *if* one of the core plugins chooses - for technical reasons (such as
>> > try with resources or the diamond operator making the code nicer) to bump
>> > its dependency to maven 4.0 then that's fine
>> >
>> > Right now if a plugin has a technical need to force jdk 1.6 it can just
>> do
>> > that... For users it is cleaner to push that by upping the minimum maven
>> > version to 3.2.1 as that guarantees jdk 1.6 minimum.
>> >
>> > We have not spelled out how we support plugins. The core policy we said
>> is
>> > a bit wooly but right now we have three lines all less than two years
>> > old... My point of view is that we should say:
>> >
>> > 3.0.x is security fixes only
>> > 3.1.x is security fixes only (unless a specific RM steps up... This is
>> the
>> > call for a committer who wants jdk 1.5 support retained to step up)
>> > 3.2.x is active
>>
>> Regardless of how this discussion and any following vote threads goes,
>> we should document the Java requirements for Maven and its various
>> components somewhere on our site. There should also be a link to that
>> page from the front page called "Technical requirement" or something
>> like it. If we can say Java 6 for everything that'll make things easy
>> to start with. After that we can add an exceptions-from-the-rule
>> section to the page, when some component needs to use a newer version
>> of Java for some technical reason.
>>
>> >
>> > So if the plugin developers find their life simplified by restricting to
>> > only modern fully supported versions of maven, then let's up them to
>> 3.2.x
>> > APIs and req jdk 1.6... If there are Committers with needs to support jdk
>> > 1.5 we will not prevent them continuing but by and large what I tebd to
>> see
>> > is a lot of noise that prevents progress and not a lot of stepping up.
>> >
>> > So if you want a vote that says "unless plugin maintainers feel strongly
>> > otherwise, the default is that all new plugin releases should require
>> maven
>> > 3.2.x and jdk 1.6 as a minimum" then you have my +1
>> >
>> > Oracle are being aggressive with EOL of jdks so IIUC by the time we
>> > actually cut 4.0 it may be jdk 8 and 9 as the only supported versions...
>> > Yeeehaw!!!
>> >
>> > (FYI jenkins is currently considering jdk 8 as a minimum.... I'd love if
>> we
>> > could jump there too)
>> >
>> > On Saturday, 27 September 2014, Kristian Rosenvold <
>> > kristian.rosenvold@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Yeah Karl, I think you're right :) Things aren't always that easy so
>> >> we tend to err in favor of being conservative, which I think is ok.
>> >> Personally I think all java versions < 1.8 are a drag right now. So I
>> >> think we call a straight vote for 1.6 for everything. Although not
>> >> very ambitious, it moves us one step forward. In another 6 months we
>> >> do 1 more step forwards :)
>> >>
>> >> We'll keep this thread open until monday and then call a vote.
>> >>
>> >> Kristian
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 2014-09-27 20:56 GMT+02:00 Karl Heinz Marbaise <khmarbaise@gmx.de
>> >> <java script:;>>:
>> >> > Hi Kristian,
>> >> >
>> >> >> Karl; I think you are mixing concerns somewhat -making things a
>> little
>> >> >>
>> >> >> more complex than they need to be.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > I think it is not that simple...
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I would propose that most people using 2.2.1 are not doing so due to
>> >> >> the java version,
>> >> >
>> >> >> but simply because they have not ported their build
>> >> >>
>> >> >> to 3.X due to a bag of different constraints, java version being only
>> >> >> one of them.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > some people do and some don't...but this is an other story....
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So most users would be able to run 2.2.1 with jdk 1.6. And they can
>> >> >> still run 2.2.1 with jdk 1.5, they'll just be missing
>> >> >> the upgrades.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > I'm with you.....
>> >> >
>> >> >> This is the "cost" of running old software, and the
>> >> >>
>> >> >> industry as a whole is making running legacy versions
>> >> >> cumbersome/costly.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > really true...But the problem is that migration takes time/money......
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> But I think coupling java version -> maven version like you're doing
>> >> >> is basically flawed; for most users this is not about java versions.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > It's a point of view...as i mentioned...consistency...
>> >> >
>> >> > You are right that i'm coupling this...if it's flawed...it depends...
>> >> >
>> >> > The java versions are the most cases where an update takes much longer
>> >> than
>> >> > you think...i have customers which are running on Java 1.5 and Java
>> 1.6
>> >> (IBM
>> >> > based as Anders...1.6 +1...)...
>> >> >
>> >> > I have written down my thoughts....but of course we can go a different
>> >> > way...i just wanted to give my thought and to reconsider things like
>> >> > this...for a further decision...
>> >> >
>> >> > 1.6 might be a good alternative...to go with...
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Kristian
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 2014-09-27 20:01 GMT+02:00 Karl Heinz Marbaise <khmarbaise@gmx.de
>> >> <java script:;>>:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Hi Kristian,
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> On 9/27/14 7:23 PM, Kristian Rosenvold wrote:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> We moved core to 1.6 some time ago.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> As far as i know starting with Maven 3.2.1...was the first one...
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Time to move everything else as well ?
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> We have at the moment a large number of plugins which have minimum
>> >> Maven
>> >> >>> 2.2.1 (JDK 1.5)...and few are currently at Maven 2.0.6 (that's only
>> >> for
>> >> >>> a
>> >> >>> limited amount of time)
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> The next round should be to lift up to Maven 3.0.5 at minimum which
>> >> >>> implies
>> >> >>> to left Maven 2 finally behind.....
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Making it visible to people by using 3.X versions for the plugins or
>> >> >>> something similar...
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> ...afterwards i see the next round to lift up to Maven 3.1.1...
>> >> >>> and after that i see the next lift up to Maven 3.2.1 which implies
>> Java
>> >> >>> 1.6...and so on....
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> It's a longer way...which takes time...
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Kristian (Who's ready to say "1.7" but we stop by 1.6 first :)
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> If we go the above path it's of course longer but more consistence
>> from
>> >> >>> the
>> >> >>> user point of view...using Maven 3.0.5 which works with Java 1.5
>> ...and
>> >> >>> the
>> >> >>> plugins as well...etc...
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Of course from the technical point of view it's not that good ;-(...
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> So from my site i would vote with +0 ...
>> >> >>>
>> >> >
>> >> > Kind regards
>> >> > Karl-Heinz Marbaise
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>> <java script:;>
>> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>> >> <java script:;>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org <java script:;>
>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>> <java script:;>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > --
>> > Sent from my phone
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dennis Lundberg
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>
>>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Move everything to 1.6
Posted by Stephen Connolly <st...@gmail.com>.
well one thing I would like us to do better is communicate exactly which
release lines of Maven we are actively maintaining and what we mean by such
active maintenance.
My personal view is
* if there has been no commit to a release line for > 1 year then it is not
in active maintenance
* if there has been no commit to a release line for > 2 years (and
consequently no release) then we should consider that line potentially
dead... releasing core is tricky enough, so if we have not cut a release of
an older line for more than 2 years then the hurdle to actually cut a
release may be sufficiently high as to prevent any releases.
If we take that criteria into account, 3.0.5 is nearing the end of life.
3.1.1 is probably not being actively maintained.
So I would be looking to mark the 3.0.x line EOL either now or in 5 months
I would be looking to say 3.1.x is "security fixes only" next month
Consequently I would be happy to say that core plugins can pick 3.2.x as
their baseline and be done with it... if people feel strongly against
that... well, if they are committers then I will vote on their releases
from a "stable" branch... if they are not committers, then I will apply
their patches and canvas to make them committers...
For the project's sake, in my view, we have to start clearing out the
cruft... if that means JDK6 as the minimum for everything... fine! if that
means Maven 3.2.1 as the minimum for everything, even better...
Users will be stubborn and use the older versions as long as they can...
but it is increasingly difficult for use - as developers - to develop while
maintaining support for those older jdks and the range of maven cores. If
we can simplify then we should be able to progress faster...
Of course the only rider is that I seem perpetually stuck in side projects
and work projects and never seem to get as much time as i would like to
work on Maven... so I'm not going to force anything.... ultimately it's the
committers that drive this project... I'm just putting my voice out there
for the active committers to take heed of or ignore as they see fit!
On 29 September 2014 20:21, Dennis Lundberg <de...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Stephen Connolly
> <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Well why I recall we said last time was that we'd only support the jdk
> > supported by the supported versions of maven
> >
> > So *if* one of the core plugins chooses - for technical reasons (such as
> > try with resources or the diamond operator making the code nicer) to bump
> > its dependency to maven 4.0 then that's fine
> >
> > Right now if a plugin has a technical need to force jdk 1.6 it can just
> do
> > that... For users it is cleaner to push that by upping the minimum maven
> > version to 3.2.1 as that guarantees jdk 1.6 minimum.
> >
> > We have not spelled out how we support plugins. The core policy we said
> is
> > a bit wooly but right now we have three lines all less than two years
> > old... My point of view is that we should say:
> >
> > 3.0.x is security fixes only
> > 3.1.x is security fixes only (unless a specific RM steps up... This is
> the
> > call for a committer who wants jdk 1.5 support retained to step up)
> > 3.2.x is active
>
> Regardless of how this discussion and any following vote threads goes,
> we should document the Java requirements for Maven and its various
> components somewhere on our site. There should also be a link to that
> page from the front page called "Technical requirement" or something
> like it. If we can say Java 6 for everything that'll make things easy
> to start with. After that we can add an exceptions-from-the-rule
> section to the page, when some component needs to use a newer version
> of Java for some technical reason.
>
> >
> > So if the plugin developers find their life simplified by restricting to
> > only modern fully supported versions of maven, then let's up them to
> 3.2.x
> > APIs and req jdk 1.6... If there are Committers with needs to support jdk
> > 1.5 we will not prevent them continuing but by and large what I tebd to
> see
> > is a lot of noise that prevents progress and not a lot of stepping up.
> >
> > So if you want a vote that says "unless plugin maintainers feel strongly
> > otherwise, the default is that all new plugin releases should require
> maven
> > 3.2.x and jdk 1.6 as a minimum" then you have my +1
> >
> > Oracle are being aggressive with EOL of jdks so IIUC by the time we
> > actually cut 4.0 it may be jdk 8 and 9 as the only supported versions...
> > Yeeehaw!!!
> >
> > (FYI jenkins is currently considering jdk 8 as a minimum.... I'd love if
> we
> > could jump there too)
> >
> > On Saturday, 27 September 2014, Kristian Rosenvold <
> > kristian.rosenvold@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Yeah Karl, I think you're right :) Things aren't always that easy so
> >> we tend to err in favor of being conservative, which I think is ok.
> >> Personally I think all java versions < 1.8 are a drag right now. So I
> >> think we call a straight vote for 1.6 for everything. Although not
> >> very ambitious, it moves us one step forward. In another 6 months we
> >> do 1 more step forwards :)
> >>
> >> We'll keep this thread open until monday and then call a vote.
> >>
> >> Kristian
> >>
> >>
> >> 2014-09-27 20:56 GMT+02:00 Karl Heinz Marbaise <khmarbaise@gmx.de
> >> <javascript:;>>:
> >> > Hi Kristian,
> >> >
> >> >> Karl; I think you are mixing concerns somewhat -making things a
> little
> >> >>
> >> >> more complex than they need to be.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I think it is not that simple...
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> I would propose that most people using 2.2.1 are not doing so due to
> >> >> the java version,
> >> >
> >> >> but simply because they have not ported their build
> >> >>
> >> >> to 3.X due to a bag of different constraints, java version being only
> >> >> one of them.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > some people do and some don't...but this is an other story....
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> So most users would be able to run 2.2.1 with jdk 1.6. And they can
> >> >> still run 2.2.1 with jdk 1.5, they'll just be missing
> >> >> the upgrades.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I'm with you.....
> >> >
> >> >> This is the "cost" of running old software, and the
> >> >>
> >> >> industry as a whole is making running legacy versions
> >> >> cumbersome/costly.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > really true...But the problem is that migration takes time/money......
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> But I think coupling java version -> maven version like you're doing
> >> >> is basically flawed; for most users this is not about java versions.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > It's a point of view...as i mentioned...consistency...
> >> >
> >> > You are right that i'm coupling this...if it's flawed...it depends...
> >> >
> >> > The java versions are the most cases where an update takes much longer
> >> than
> >> > you think...i have customers which are running on Java 1.5 and Java
> 1.6
> >> (IBM
> >> > based as Anders...1.6 +1...)...
> >> >
> >> > I have written down my thoughts....but of course we can go a different
> >> > way...i just wanted to give my thought and to reconsider things like
> >> > this...for a further decision...
> >> >
> >> > 1.6 might be a good alternative...to go with...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Kristian
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> 2014-09-27 20:01 GMT+02:00 Karl Heinz Marbaise <khmarbaise@gmx.de
> >> <javascript:;>>:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Hi Kristian,
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On 9/27/14 7:23 PM, Kristian Rosenvold wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> We moved core to 1.6 some time ago.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> As far as i know starting with Maven 3.2.1...was the first one...
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Time to move everything else as well ?
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> We have at the moment a large number of plugins which have minimum
> >> Maven
> >> >>> 2.2.1 (JDK 1.5)...and few are currently at Maven 2.0.6 (that's only
> >> for
> >> >>> a
> >> >>> limited amount of time)
> >> >>>
> >> >>> The next round should be to lift up to Maven 3.0.5 at minimum which
> >> >>> implies
> >> >>> to left Maven 2 finally behind.....
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Making it visible to people by using 3.X versions for the plugins or
> >> >>> something similar...
> >> >>>
> >> >>> ...afterwards i see the next round to lift up to Maven 3.1.1...
> >> >>> and after that i see the next lift up to Maven 3.2.1 which implies
> Java
> >> >>> 1.6...and so on....
> >> >>>
> >> >>> It's a longer way...which takes time...
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Kristian (Who's ready to say "1.7" but we stop by 1.6 first :)
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> If we go the above path it's of course longer but more consistence
> from
> >> >>> the
> >> >>> user point of view...using Maven 3.0.5 which works with Java 1.5
> ...and
> >> >>> the
> >> >>> plugins as well...etc...
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Of course from the technical point of view it's not that good ;-(...
> >> >>>
> >> >>> So from my site i would vote with +0 ...
> >> >>>
> >> >
> >> > Kind regards
> >> > Karl-Heinz Marbaise
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> <javascript:;>
> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
> >> <javascript:;>
> >> >
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> 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
>
>
>
> --
> Dennis Lundberg
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Move everything to 1.6
Posted by Dennis Lundberg <de...@apache.org>.
On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Stephen Connolly
<st...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well why I recall we said last time was that we'd only support the jdk
> supported by the supported versions of maven
>
> So *if* one of the core plugins chooses - for technical reasons (such as
> try with resources or the diamond operator making the code nicer) to bump
> its dependency to maven 4.0 then that's fine
>
> Right now if a plugin has a technical need to force jdk 1.6 it can just do
> that... For users it is cleaner to push that by upping the minimum maven
> version to 3.2.1 as that guarantees jdk 1.6 minimum.
>
> We have not spelled out how we support plugins. The core policy we said is
> a bit wooly but right now we have three lines all less than two years
> old... My point of view is that we should say:
>
> 3.0.x is security fixes only
> 3.1.x is security fixes only (unless a specific RM steps up... This is the
> call for a committer who wants jdk 1.5 support retained to step up)
> 3.2.x is active
Regardless of how this discussion and any following vote threads goes,
we should document the Java requirements for Maven and its various
components somewhere on our site. There should also be a link to that
page from the front page called "Technical requirement" or something
like it. If we can say Java 6 for everything that'll make things easy
to start with. After that we can add an exceptions-from-the-rule
section to the page, when some component needs to use a newer version
of Java for some technical reason.
>
> So if the plugin developers find their life simplified by restricting to
> only modern fully supported versions of maven, then let's up them to 3.2.x
> APIs and req jdk 1.6... If there are Committers with needs to support jdk
> 1.5 we will not prevent them continuing but by and large what I tebd to see
> is a lot of noise that prevents progress and not a lot of stepping up.
>
> So if you want a vote that says "unless plugin maintainers feel strongly
> otherwise, the default is that all new plugin releases should require maven
> 3.2.x and jdk 1.6 as a minimum" then you have my +1
>
> Oracle are being aggressive with EOL of jdks so IIUC by the time we
> actually cut 4.0 it may be jdk 8 and 9 as the only supported versions...
> Yeeehaw!!!
>
> (FYI jenkins is currently considering jdk 8 as a minimum.... I'd love if we
> could jump there too)
>
> On Saturday, 27 September 2014, Kristian Rosenvold <
> kristian.rosenvold@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yeah Karl, I think you're right :) Things aren't always that easy so
>> we tend to err in favor of being conservative, which I think is ok.
>> Personally I think all java versions < 1.8 are a drag right now. So I
>> think we call a straight vote for 1.6 for everything. Although not
>> very ambitious, it moves us one step forward. In another 6 months we
>> do 1 more step forwards :)
>>
>> We'll keep this thread open until monday and then call a vote.
>>
>> Kristian
>>
>>
>> 2014-09-27 20:56 GMT+02:00 Karl Heinz Marbaise <khmarbaise@gmx.de
>> <javascript:;>>:
>> > Hi Kristian,
>> >
>> >> Karl; I think you are mixing concerns somewhat -making things a little
>> >>
>> >> more complex than they need to be.
>> >
>> >
>> > I think it is not that simple...
>> >
>> >>
>> >> I would propose that most people using 2.2.1 are not doing so due to
>> >> the java version,
>> >
>> >> but simply because they have not ported their build
>> >>
>> >> to 3.X due to a bag of different constraints, java version being only
>> >> one of them.
>> >
>> >
>> > some people do and some don't...but this is an other story....
>> >
>> >>
>> >> So most users would be able to run 2.2.1 with jdk 1.6. And they can
>> >> still run 2.2.1 with jdk 1.5, they'll just be missing
>> >> the upgrades.
>> >
>> >
>> > I'm with you.....
>> >
>> >> This is the "cost" of running old software, and the
>> >>
>> >> industry as a whole is making running legacy versions
>> >> cumbersome/costly.
>> >
>> >
>> > really true...But the problem is that migration takes time/money......
>> >
>> >>
>> >> But I think coupling java version -> maven version like you're doing
>> >> is basically flawed; for most users this is not about java versions.
>> >
>> >
>> > It's a point of view...as i mentioned...consistency...
>> >
>> > You are right that i'm coupling this...if it's flawed...it depends...
>> >
>> > The java versions are the most cases where an update takes much longer
>> than
>> > you think...i have customers which are running on Java 1.5 and Java 1.6
>> (IBM
>> > based as Anders...1.6 +1...)...
>> >
>> > I have written down my thoughts....but of course we can go a different
>> > way...i just wanted to give my thought and to reconsider things like
>> > this...for a further decision...
>> >
>> > 1.6 might be a good alternative...to go with...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Kristian
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 2014-09-27 20:01 GMT+02:00 Karl Heinz Marbaise <khmarbaise@gmx.de
>> <javascript:;>>:
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi Kristian,
>> >>>
>> >>> On 9/27/14 7:23 PM, Kristian Rosenvold wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> We moved core to 1.6 some time ago.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> As far as i know starting with Maven 3.2.1...was the first one...
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Time to move everything else as well ?
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> We have at the moment a large number of plugins which have minimum
>> Maven
>> >>> 2.2.1 (JDK 1.5)...and few are currently at Maven 2.0.6 (that's only
>> for
>> >>> a
>> >>> limited amount of time)
>> >>>
>> >>> The next round should be to lift up to Maven 3.0.5 at minimum which
>> >>> implies
>> >>> to left Maven 2 finally behind.....
>> >>>
>> >>> Making it visible to people by using 3.X versions for the plugins or
>> >>> something similar...
>> >>>
>> >>> ...afterwards i see the next round to lift up to Maven 3.1.1...
>> >>> and after that i see the next lift up to Maven 3.2.1 which implies Java
>> >>> 1.6...and so on....
>> >>>
>> >>> It's a longer way...which takes time...
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Kristian (Who's ready to say "1.7" but we stop by 1.6 first :)
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> If we go the above path it's of course longer but more consistence from
>> >>> the
>> >>> user point of view...using Maven 3.0.5 which works with Java 1.5 ...and
>> >>> the
>> >>> plugins as well...etc...
>> >>>
>> >>> Of course from the technical point of view it's not that good ;-(...
>> >>>
>> >>> So from my site i would vote with +0 ...
>> >>>
>> >
>> > Kind regards
>> > Karl-Heinz Marbaise
>> >
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org <javascript:;>
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>> <javascript:;>
>> >
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
--
Dennis Lundberg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Move everything to 1.6
Posted by Stephen Connolly <st...@gmail.com>.
Well why I recall we said last time was that we'd only support the jdk
supported by the supported versions of maven
So *if* one of the core plugins chooses - for technical reasons (such as
try with resources or the diamond operator making the code nicer) to bump
its dependency to maven 4.0 then that's fine
Right now if a plugin has a technical need to force jdk 1.6 it can just do
that... For users it is cleaner to push that by upping the minimum maven
version to 3.2.1 as that guarantees jdk 1.6 minimum.
We have not spelled out how we support plugins. The core policy we said is
a bit wooly but right now we have three lines all less than two years
old... My point of view is that we should say:
3.0.x is security fixes only
3.1.x is security fixes only (unless a specific RM steps up... This is the
call for a committer who wants jdk 1.5 support retained to step up)
3.2.x is active
So if the plugin developers find their life simplified by restricting to
only modern fully supported versions of maven, then let's up them to 3.2.x
APIs and req jdk 1.6... If there are Committers with needs to support jdk
1.5 we will not prevent them continuing but by and large what I tebd to see
is a lot of noise that prevents progress and not a lot of stepping up.
So if you want a vote that says "unless plugin maintainers feel strongly
otherwise, the default is that all new plugin releases should require maven
3.2.x and jdk 1.6 as a minimum" then you have my +1
Oracle are being aggressive with EOL of jdks so IIUC by the time we
actually cut 4.0 it may be jdk 8 and 9 as the only supported versions...
Yeeehaw!!!
(FYI jenkins is currently considering jdk 8 as a minimum.... I'd love if we
could jump there too)
On Saturday, 27 September 2014, Kristian Rosenvold <
kristian.rosenvold@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yeah Karl, I think you're right :) Things aren't always that easy so
> we tend to err in favor of being conservative, which I think is ok.
> Personally I think all java versions < 1.8 are a drag right now. So I
> think we call a straight vote for 1.6 for everything. Although not
> very ambitious, it moves us one step forward. In another 6 months we
> do 1 more step forwards :)
>
> We'll keep this thread open until monday and then call a vote.
>
> Kristian
>
>
> 2014-09-27 20:56 GMT+02:00 Karl Heinz Marbaise <khmarbaise@gmx.de
> <javascript:;>>:
> > Hi Kristian,
> >
> >> Karl; I think you are mixing concerns somewhat -making things a little
> >>
> >> more complex than they need to be.
> >
> >
> > I think it is not that simple...
> >
> >>
> >> I would propose that most people using 2.2.1 are not doing so due to
> >> the java version,
> >
> >> but simply because they have not ported their build
> >>
> >> to 3.X due to a bag of different constraints, java version being only
> >> one of them.
> >
> >
> > some people do and some don't...but this is an other story....
> >
> >>
> >> So most users would be able to run 2.2.1 with jdk 1.6. And they can
> >> still run 2.2.1 with jdk 1.5, they'll just be missing
> >> the upgrades.
> >
> >
> > I'm with you.....
> >
> >> This is the "cost" of running old software, and the
> >>
> >> industry as a whole is making running legacy versions
> >> cumbersome/costly.
> >
> >
> > really true...But the problem is that migration takes time/money......
> >
> >>
> >> But I think coupling java version -> maven version like you're doing
> >> is basically flawed; for most users this is not about java versions.
> >
> >
> > It's a point of view...as i mentioned...consistency...
> >
> > You are right that i'm coupling this...if it's flawed...it depends...
> >
> > The java versions are the most cases where an update takes much longer
> than
> > you think...i have customers which are running on Java 1.5 and Java 1.6
> (IBM
> > based as Anders...1.6 +1...)...
> >
> > I have written down my thoughts....but of course we can go a different
> > way...i just wanted to give my thought and to reconsider things like
> > this...for a further decision...
> >
> > 1.6 might be a good alternative...to go with...
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Kristian
> >>
> >>
> >> 2014-09-27 20:01 GMT+02:00 Karl Heinz Marbaise <khmarbaise@gmx.de
> <javascript:;>>:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Kristian,
> >>>
> >>> On 9/27/14 7:23 PM, Kristian Rosenvold wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> We moved core to 1.6 some time ago.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> As far as i know starting with Maven 3.2.1...was the first one...
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Time to move everything else as well ?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> We have at the moment a large number of plugins which have minimum
> Maven
> >>> 2.2.1 (JDK 1.5)...and few are currently at Maven 2.0.6 (that's only
> for
> >>> a
> >>> limited amount of time)
> >>>
> >>> The next round should be to lift up to Maven 3.0.5 at minimum which
> >>> implies
> >>> to left Maven 2 finally behind.....
> >>>
> >>> Making it visible to people by using 3.X versions for the plugins or
> >>> something similar...
> >>>
> >>> ...afterwards i see the next round to lift up to Maven 3.1.1...
> >>> and after that i see the next lift up to Maven 3.2.1 which implies Java
> >>> 1.6...and so on....
> >>>
> >>> It's a longer way...which takes time...
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Kristian (Who's ready to say "1.7" but we stop by 1.6 first :)
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> If we go the above path it's of course longer but more consistence from
> >>> the
> >>> user point of view...using Maven 3.0.5 which works with Java 1.5 ...and
> >>> the
> >>> plugins as well...etc...
> >>>
> >>> Of course from the technical point of view it's not that good ;-(...
> >>>
> >>> So from my site i would vote with +0 ...
> >>>
> >
> > Kind regards
> > Karl-Heinz Marbaise
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org <javascript:;>
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
> <javascript:;>
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: [DISCUSS] Move everything to 1.6
Posted by Kristian Rosenvold <kr...@gmail.com>.
Yeah Karl, I think you're right :) Things aren't always that easy so
we tend to err in favor of being conservative, which I think is ok.
Personally I think all java versions < 1.8 are a drag right now. So I
think we call a straight vote for 1.6 for everything. Although not
very ambitious, it moves us one step forward. In another 6 months we
do 1 more step forwards :)
We'll keep this thread open until monday and then call a vote.
Kristian
2014-09-27 20:56 GMT+02:00 Karl Heinz Marbaise <kh...@gmx.de>:
> Hi Kristian,
>
>> Karl; I think you are mixing concerns somewhat -making things a little
>>
>> more complex than they need to be.
>
>
> I think it is not that simple...
>
>>
>> I would propose that most people using 2.2.1 are not doing so due to
>> the java version,
>
>> but simply because they have not ported their build
>>
>> to 3.X due to a bag of different constraints, java version being only
>> one of them.
>
>
> some people do and some don't...but this is an other story....
>
>>
>> So most users would be able to run 2.2.1 with jdk 1.6. And they can
>> still run 2.2.1 with jdk 1.5, they'll just be missing
>> the upgrades.
>
>
> I'm with you.....
>
>> This is the "cost" of running old software, and the
>>
>> industry as a whole is making running legacy versions
>> cumbersome/costly.
>
>
> really true...But the problem is that migration takes time/money......
>
>>
>> But I think coupling java version -> maven version like you're doing
>> is basically flawed; for most users this is not about java versions.
>
>
> It's a point of view...as i mentioned...consistency...
>
> You are right that i'm coupling this...if it's flawed...it depends...
>
> The java versions are the most cases where an update takes much longer than
> you think...i have customers which are running on Java 1.5 and Java 1.6 (IBM
> based as Anders...1.6 +1...)...
>
> I have written down my thoughts....but of course we can go a different
> way...i just wanted to give my thought and to reconsider things like
> this...for a further decision...
>
> 1.6 might be a good alternative...to go with...
>
>
>
>>
>> Kristian
>>
>>
>> 2014-09-27 20:01 GMT+02:00 Karl Heinz Marbaise <kh...@gmx.de>:
>>>
>>> Hi Kristian,
>>>
>>> On 9/27/14 7:23 PM, Kristian Rosenvold wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We moved core to 1.6 some time ago.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As far as i know starting with Maven 3.2.1...was the first one...
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Time to move everything else as well ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We have at the moment a large number of plugins which have minimum Maven
>>> 2.2.1 (JDK 1.5)...and few are currently at Maven 2.0.6 (that's only for
>>> a
>>> limited amount of time)
>>>
>>> The next round should be to lift up to Maven 3.0.5 at minimum which
>>> implies
>>> to left Maven 2 finally behind.....
>>>
>>> Making it visible to people by using 3.X versions for the plugins or
>>> something similar...
>>>
>>> ...afterwards i see the next round to lift up to Maven 3.1.1...
>>> and after that i see the next lift up to Maven 3.2.1 which implies Java
>>> 1.6...and so on....
>>>
>>> It's a longer way...which takes time...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Kristian (Who's ready to say "1.7" but we stop by 1.6 first :)
>>>>
>>>
>>> If we go the above path it's of course longer but more consistence from
>>> the
>>> user point of view...using Maven 3.0.5 which works with Java 1.5 ...and
>>> the
>>> plugins as well...etc...
>>>
>>> Of course from the technical point of view it's not that good ;-(...
>>>
>>> So from my site i would vote with +0 ...
>>>
>
> Kind regards
> Karl-Heinz Marbaise
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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] Move everything to 1.6
Posted by Karl Heinz Marbaise <kh...@gmx.de>.
Hi Kristian,
> Karl; I think you are mixing concerns somewhat -making things a little
> more complex than they need to be.
I think it is not that simple...
>
> I would propose that most people using 2.2.1 are not doing so due to
> the java version,
> but simply because they have not ported their build
> to 3.X due to a bag of different constraints, java version being only
> one of them.
some people do and some don't...but this is an other story....
>
> So most users would be able to run 2.2.1 with jdk 1.6. And they can
> still run 2.2.1 with jdk 1.5, they'll just be missing
> the upgrades.
I'm with you.....
> This is the "cost" of running old software, and the
> industry as a whole is making running legacy versions
> cumbersome/costly.
really true...But the problem is that migration takes time/money......
>
> But I think coupling java version -> maven version like you're doing
> is basically flawed; for most users this is not about java versions.
It's a point of view...as i mentioned...consistency...
You are right that i'm coupling this...if it's flawed...it depends...
The java versions are the most cases where an update takes much longer
than you think...i have customers which are running on Java 1.5 and Java
1.6 (IBM based as Anders...1.6 +1...)...
I have written down my thoughts....but of course we can go a different
way...i just wanted to give my thought and to reconsider things like
this...for a further decision...
1.6 might be a good alternative...to go with...
>
> Kristian
>
>
> 2014-09-27 20:01 GMT+02:00 Karl Heinz Marbaise <kh...@gmx.de>:
>> Hi Kristian,
>>
>> On 9/27/14 7:23 PM, Kristian Rosenvold wrote:
>>>
>>> We moved core to 1.6 some time ago.
>>
>>
>> As far as i know starting with Maven 3.2.1...was the first one...
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Time to move everything else as well ?
>>
>>
>> We have at the moment a large number of plugins which have minimum Maven
>> 2.2.1 (JDK 1.5)...and few are currently at Maven 2.0.6 (that's only for a
>> limited amount of time)
>>
>> The next round should be to lift up to Maven 3.0.5 at minimum which implies
>> to left Maven 2 finally behind.....
>>
>> Making it visible to people by using 3.X versions for the plugins or
>> something similar...
>>
>> ...afterwards i see the next round to lift up to Maven 3.1.1...
>> and after that i see the next lift up to Maven 3.2.1 which implies Java
>> 1.6...and so on....
>>
>> It's a longer way...which takes time...
>>
>>>
>>> Kristian (Who's ready to say "1.7" but we stop by 1.6 first :)
>>>
>>
>> If we go the above path it's of course longer but more consistence from the
>> user point of view...using Maven 3.0.5 which works with Java 1.5 ...and the
>> plugins as well...etc...
>>
>> Of course from the technical point of view it's not that good ;-(...
>>
>> So from my site i would vote with +0 ...
>>
Kind regards
Karl-Heinz Marbaise
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Move everything to 1.6
Posted by Kristian Rosenvold <kr...@gmail.com>.
Karl; I think you are mixing concerns somewhat -making things a little
more complex than they need to be.
I would propose that most people using 2.2.1 are not doing so due to
the java version, but simply because they have not ported their build
to 3.X due to a bag of different constraints, java version being only
one of them.
So most users would be able to run 2.2.1 with jdk 1.6. And they can
still run 2.2.1 with jdk 1.5, they'll just be missing
the upgrades. This is the "cost" of running old software, and the
industry as a whole is making running legacy versions
cumbersome/costly.
But I think coupling java version -> maven version like you're doing
is basically flawed; for most users this is not about java versions.
Kristian
2014-09-27 20:01 GMT+02:00 Karl Heinz Marbaise <kh...@gmx.de>:
> Hi Kristian,
>
> On 9/27/14 7:23 PM, Kristian Rosenvold wrote:
>>
>> We moved core to 1.6 some time ago.
>
>
> As far as i know starting with Maven 3.2.1...was the first one...
>
>>
>>
>> Time to move everything else as well ?
>
>
> We have at the moment a large number of plugins which have minimum Maven
> 2.2.1 (JDK 1.5)...and few are currently at Maven 2.0.6 (that's only for a
> limited amount of time)
>
> The next round should be to lift up to Maven 3.0.5 at minimum which implies
> to left Maven 2 finally behind.....
>
> Making it visible to people by using 3.X versions for the plugins or
> something similar...
>
> ...afterwards i see the next round to lift up to Maven 3.1.1...
> and after that i see the next lift up to Maven 3.2.1 which implies Java
> 1.6...and so on....
>
> It's a longer way...which takes time...
>
>>
>> Kristian (Who's ready to say "1.7" but we stop by 1.6 first :)
>>
>
> If we go the above path it's of course longer but more consistence from the
> user point of view...using Maven 3.0.5 which works with Java 1.5 ...and the
> plugins as well...etc...
>
> Of course from the technical point of view it's not that good ;-(...
>
> So from my site i would vote with +0 ...
>
> Kind regards
> Karl-Heinz Marbaise
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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] Move everything to 1.6
Posted by Anders Hammar <an...@hammar.net>.
1.6 is fine by me. Working actively with a customer using IBM's JDK 1.6,
which is still supported by IBM, will make me vote -1 on a move to 1.7
currently.
/Anders
On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 8:01 PM, Karl Heinz Marbaise <kh...@gmx.de>
wrote:
> Hi Kristian,
>
> On 9/27/14 7:23 PM, Kristian Rosenvold wrote:
>
>> We moved core to 1.6 some time ago.
>>
>
> As far as i know starting with Maven 3.2.1...was the first one...
>
> >
>
>> Time to move everything else as well ?
>>
>
> We have at the moment a large number of plugins which have minimum Maven
> 2.2.1 (JDK 1.5)...and few are currently at Maven 2.0.6 (that's only for a
> limited amount of time)
>
> The next round should be to lift up to Maven 3.0.5 at minimum which
> implies to left Maven 2 finally behind.....
>
> Making it visible to people by using 3.X versions for the plugins or
> something similar...
>
> ...afterwards i see the next round to lift up to Maven 3.1.1...
> and after that i see the next lift up to Maven 3.2.1 which implies Java
> 1.6...and so on....
>
> It's a longer way...which takes time...
>
>
>> Kristian (Who's ready to say "1.7" but we stop by 1.6 first :)
>>
>>
> If we go the above path it's of course longer but more consistence from
> the user point of view...using Maven 3.0.5 which works with Java 1.5 ...and
> the plugins as well...etc...
>
> Of course from the technical point of view it's not that good ;-(...
>
> So from my site i would vote with +0 ...
>
> Kind regards
> Karl-Heinz Marbaise
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Move everything to 1.6
Posted by Hervé BOUTEMY <he...@free.fr>.
Le lundi 29 septembre 2014 21:16:56 Dennis Lundberg a écrit :
> On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 8:01 PM, Karl Heinz Marbaise <kh...@gmx.de>
wrote:
> > Hi Kristian,
> >
> > On 9/27/14 7:23 PM, Kristian Rosenvold wrote:
> >> We moved core to 1.6 some time ago.
> >
> > As far as i know starting with Maven 3.2.1...was the first one...
> >
> >> Time to move everything else as well ?
> >
> > We have at the moment a large number of plugins which have minimum Maven
> > 2.2.1 (JDK 1.5)...and few are currently at Maven 2.0.6 (that's only for a
> > limited amount of time)
>
> I think it would be wise to allow Karl-Heinz to continue with his
> excellent work on unifying the Maven core dependencies of many of our
> plugins. That will make them consistent in requiring Maven 2.2.1 (and
> Java 5).
>
> When this work is done I think it is a good time to change the
> ${javaVersion} property in the Maven parent POM, and say that all
> future release from the Apache Maven project will require Java 6. That
> would be across the board, core, shared components, plugins,
> everything.
+1
Regards,
Hervé
>
> > The next round should be to lift up to Maven 3.0.5 at minimum which
> > implies
> > to left Maven 2 finally behind.....
> >
> > Making it visible to people by using 3.X versions for the plugins or
> > something similar...
> >
> > ...afterwards i see the next round to lift up to Maven 3.1.1...
> > and after that i see the next lift up to Maven 3.2.1 which implies Java
> > 1.6...and so on....
> >
> > It's a longer way...which takes time...
> >
> >> Kristian (Who's ready to say "1.7" but we stop by 1.6 first :)
> >
> > If we go the above path it's of course longer but more consistence from
> > the
> > user point of view...using Maven 3.0.5 which works with Java 1.5 ...and
> > the
> > plugins as well...etc...
> >
> > Of course from the technical point of view it's not that good ;-(...
> >
> > So from my site i would vote with +0 ...
> >
> > Kind regards
> > Karl-Heinz Marbaise
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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] Move everything to 1.6
Posted by Dennis Lundberg <de...@apache.org>.
On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 8:01 PM, Karl Heinz Marbaise <kh...@gmx.de> wrote:
> Hi Kristian,
>
> On 9/27/14 7:23 PM, Kristian Rosenvold wrote:
>>
>> We moved core to 1.6 some time ago.
>
>
> As far as i know starting with Maven 3.2.1...was the first one...
>
>>
>>
>> Time to move everything else as well ?
>
>
> We have at the moment a large number of plugins which have minimum Maven
> 2.2.1 (JDK 1.5)...and few are currently at Maven 2.0.6 (that's only for a
> limited amount of time)
I think it would be wise to allow Karl-Heinz to continue with his
excellent work on unifying the Maven core dependencies of many of our
plugins. That will make them consistent in requiring Maven 2.2.1 (and
Java 5).
When this work is done I think it is a good time to change the
${javaVersion} property in the Maven parent POM, and say that all
future release from the Apache Maven project will require Java 6. That
would be across the board, core, shared components, plugins,
everything.
>
> The next round should be to lift up to Maven 3.0.5 at minimum which implies
> to left Maven 2 finally behind.....
>
> Making it visible to people by using 3.X versions for the plugins or
> something similar...
>
> ...afterwards i see the next round to lift up to Maven 3.1.1...
> and after that i see the next lift up to Maven 3.2.1 which implies Java
> 1.6...and so on....
>
> It's a longer way...which takes time...
>
>>
>> Kristian (Who's ready to say "1.7" but we stop by 1.6 first :)
>>
>
> If we go the above path it's of course longer but more consistence from the
> user point of view...using Maven 3.0.5 which works with Java 1.5 ...and the
> plugins as well...etc...
>
> Of course from the technical point of view it's not that good ;-(...
>
> So from my site i would vote with +0 ...
>
> Kind regards
> Karl-Heinz Marbaise
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
--
Dennis Lundberg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Move everything to 1.6
Posted by Karl Heinz Marbaise <kh...@gmx.de>.
Hi Kristian,
On 9/27/14 7:23 PM, Kristian Rosenvold wrote:
> We moved core to 1.6 some time ago.
As far as i know starting with Maven 3.2.1...was the first one...
>
> Time to move everything else as well ?
We have at the moment a large number of plugins which have minimum Maven
2.2.1 (JDK 1.5)...and few are currently at Maven 2.0.6 (that's only for
a limited amount of time)
The next round should be to lift up to Maven 3.0.5 at minimum which
implies to left Maven 2 finally behind.....
Making it visible to people by using 3.X versions for the plugins or
something similar...
...afterwards i see the next round to lift up to Maven 3.1.1...
and after that i see the next lift up to Maven 3.2.1 which implies Java
1.6...and so on....
It's a longer way...which takes time...
>
> Kristian (Who's ready to say "1.7" but we stop by 1.6 first :)
>
If we go the above path it's of course longer but more consistence from
the user point of view...using Maven 3.0.5 which works with Java 1.5
...and the plugins as well...etc...
Of course from the technical point of view it's not that good ;-(...
So from my site i would vote with +0 ...
Kind regards
Karl-Heinz Marbaise
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org