Hi, I am afraid that in such legacy projects not only Maven version will be a problem.
Eg. Most newer versions of popular libraries were switched to JDK 1.8 as minimum or even higher ... and so on. Simply if an organization doesn't have time, resources to regularly maintain their projects, the best and easier way is don't touch dependencies and use it as is with old (current) infrastructure. Dependency on Open Source projects which is not regularly maintained should be on a risk track and should be maintained - especially by large tech companies. Such organizations must have an awareness that support for their product can be impossible - especially for free. So it looks like large tech companies don't want to pay for maintenance and try to require it from an Open Source project community for free :-) sob., 13 kwi 2024 o 13:22 Elliotte Rusty Harold <elh...@ibiblio.org> napisał(a): > Maybe it should be, but I wanted to drop a note that about a month > after December's decision to require Maven 3.6.3, I shifted onto an > open source project that's been around for 10+ years, is actively > backed by two large tech companies, and still depends on Maven 3.5.x > in the continuous integration build. Bleah. > > I've been trying to upgrade it, but so far without success. 3.5 seems > baked pretty deeply into the Docker images or some other part of the > CI infrastructure that isn't easy to change. This project could well > be using Maven 3.5 for years to come. It's even possible we will > rewrite the whole codebase in C++ before we manage to get past Maven > 3.5. (I wish that was hyperbole. It's not.) > > I think we tend to overestimate how fast the installed base updates, > whether it's JDKs (I got a bug report from someone still using Java 7 > yesterday), Maven versions, operating systems, or pretty much anything > else. None of us see more than a small fraction of the projects out > there. It is very easy to look at that small fraction and draw > conclusions that are falsified with a larger or different sample. > > I didn't know about this dependence on Maven 3.5 until I changed > projects in January. I haven't seen 3.3 lately, but I wouldn't be > surprised if it's still in use in multiple organizations, perhaps > because it's what's installed by default in some old Linux distro that > should also be retired but isn't. Absence of evidence is not evidence > of absence, including when considering which Maven versions developers > actively use. > > -- > Elliotte Rusty Harold > elh...@ibiblio.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > -- Sławomir Jaranowski
