subject:"New year \- new challenge \- required Maven 3.6.3 as minimal for core Maven Plugins"

Re: New year - new challenge - required Maven 3.6.3 as minimal for core Maven Plugins

2024-01-10 Thread Michael Osipov


Am 2024-01-09 um 09:12 schrieb Slawomir Jaranowski:

pt., 5 sty 2024 o 20:49 Slawomir Jaranowski 
napisał(a):




pt., 5 sty 2024 o 16:17 Michael Osipov  napisał(a):


On 2024/01/05 14:03:11 Slawomir Jaranowski wrote:

Hi,

My summary for this discussion:

No objection for change: Tamás Cservenák, Anders Hammar, Olivier Lamy,
Sylwester Lachiewicz, Jorge Solórzano, Gary Gregory, Hervé Boutemy

Michael Osipov - had a questions but I assume that is no -1 from him


Clearly not -1, I just want to see a plan before I give a reasonable vote.



Can you remember me what plan or procedure we have followed during
switching plugins requirements to 3.2.5.




  Michael kindly remember - what plan do you want to see?

For me is:
  - update documentation - https://github.com/apache/maven-site/pull/484
  - announce to users
  - start using 3.6.3 in plugins, I don't think we need a special releases
cycles with such updates for all plugins, we release new version when is
needed, requested and so on


This sounds reasonable...

Re: New year - new challenge - required Maven 3.6.3 as minimal for core Maven Plugins

2024-01-09 Thread Slawomir Jaranowski

wt., 9 sty 2024 o 10:45 Tamás Cservenák  napisał(a):

> Howdy,
>
> I still think we need to modify few bits here and there:
> - we MUST compile against latest maven (3.9.6 currently)
>

Step by step - it can be a next task


> - this thread (as I see) is about "minimal prerequisite" for plugin (so
> POM/prerequisite)
> - to address issues Slawek brought up, we need at least to modify this
> stanza in CI:
>
> https://github.com/apache/maven-gh-actions-shared/blob/v3/.github/workflows/maven-verify.yml#L50
> and build with "minimal prerequisite" and "current" at least, so matrix of
> Maven would be generally array [ "3.6.3", "3.9.6" ] as this would catch any
> problem Slawek brought up
>

Done in: https://github.com/apache/maven-gh-actions-shared/pull/93


>
> As if we keep building against versions released 2-5-10 years ago, whatever
> we deprecate in 3.9.x is never picked up.
>
> Thanks
> T
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 9:13 AM Slawomir Jaranowski  >
> wrote:
>
> > pt., 5 sty 2024 o 20:49 Slawomir Jaranowski 
> > napisał(a):
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > pt., 5 sty 2024 o 16:17 Michael Osipov 
> napisał(a):
> > >
> > >> On 2024/01/05 14:03:11 Slawomir Jaranowski wrote:
> > >> > Hi,
> > >> >
> > >> > My summary for this discussion:
> > >> >
> > >> > No objection for change: Tamás Cservenák, Anders Hammar, Olivier
> Lamy,
> > >> > Sylwester Lachiewicz, Jorge Solórzano, Gary Gregory, Hervé Boutemy
> > >> >
> > >> > Michael Osipov - had a questions but I assume that is no -1 from him
> > >>
> > >> Clearly not -1, I just want to see a plan before I give a reasonable
> > vote.
> > >>
> > >>
> > > Can you remember me what plan or procedure we have followed during
> > > switching plugins requirements to 3.2.5.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >  Michael kindly remember - what plan do you want to see?
> >
> > For me is:
> >  - update documentation - https://github.com/apache/maven-site/pull/484
> >  - announce to users
> >  - start using 3.6.3 in plugins, I don't think we need a special releases
> > cycles with such updates for all plugins, we release new version when is
> > needed, requested and so on
> >
> > I don't want to wait forever for it.
> >
> > > So:
> > >> >
> > >> > I would like to not categorize cora and not core plugins - simply we
> > >> have a
> > >> > list of plugins which is maintain by Maven team:
> > >> > https://maven.apache.org/plugins/index.html
> > >>
> > >> We have that already in the above mention page..
> > >>
> > >> > I will send a dedicated email to the dev and users list about plans.
> > >>
> > >> Can you prepare a draft first, please?
> > >>
> > >>
> > > Yes I can prepare one.. but old email in such cases like make version
> EOL
> > > or switching requirements for plugins will be helpful.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> > I will update documentations and sites about new requirements:
> > >> >  - https://maven.apache.org/developers/compatibility-plan.html
> > >> >  - https://maven.apache.org/docs/history.html
> > >> >  -
> > >>
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/Maven+Ecosystem+Cleanup
> > >> >
> > >> > With nexts release of plugins we should add "Requirements History"
> > >> >
> > >> > We have a list of current Plugins requirements:
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> https://ci-maven.apache.org/job/Maven/job/maven-box/job/maven-dist-tool/job/master/site/dist-tool-prerequisites.html
> > >>
> > >> Lookting at these, I'd like to see the retirement of all 2.2.1
> > compatible
> > >> plugins. No one found the time/motivation/need to left them to 3.x. We
> > >> should clear the premises before we raise the bar otherwise that does
> > not
> > >> look good at all.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks for working on this...
> > >>
> > >> M
> > >>
> > >> -
> > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > > --
> > > Sławomir Jaranowski
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sławomir Jaranowski
> >
>


-- 
Sławomir Jaranowski

Re: New year - new challenge - required Maven 3.6.3 as minimal for core Maven Plugins

2024-01-09 Thread Matthias Bünger


Hey all,

I'm a new user of the list so I don't know later discussions.

I would lift the minimal API version to the newest available one:

Two reasons for this:

- You / we want to cut some old tails with Maven 4. This should also be
a good time to cut old tails for maven plugins, esp. as there were
several APIs changed / removed (I have read this multiple times, but I
don't know the details as I have never coded a Maven-plugin yet)

- Users who want to stick to older versions can still use Maven 3 (I'm
totally with Karl-Heinz here). But even here I would upgrade to newest
possible.

Further background / information about me / my point of view: I'm one of
the maintainer of the JUnit Pioneer extension library and have similar
concerns there: What JUnit Jupiter version do we required? In our case
we have decided to keep the lowest we need for our extensions - even
when they are sometimes somehow experimental. But the huge difference
beweetn the Pioneer/JUnit connection and the one discussed here is: The
maven team owns both and can therefore decide far more independent (and
with a the current "drop old tails" situation can/should be a bit more
"egoistic" in my point of view.

Have a good evening

Matthias


Am 29.12.2023 um 18:39 schrieb Michael Osipov:

Am 2023-12-29 um 14:42 schrieb Slawomir Jaranowski:

Hi,

Last year we mark all Maven versions 3.6.x and older as EOL [1]

But we still try to support minimal API version for Core Maven
Plugins as
3.2.5

I would like to  propose to sich it for at least to 3.6.3

Reasonable reasons: (for me)
  - for standard CI build we use Maven 3.6.3 and newer
  - many of external plugins, like MojoHaus are switched to 3.6.3
  - we have a hacks in code to try support old version in plugin, like
in: EnhancedPluginDescriptorBuilder in plugin-tools [2], we can cleanup
such code
- I don't believe to someone want to do more fixes for EOL Maven
version in
plugins - so we should be a honest for users
- and we should go forward

[1] https://maven.apache.org/docs/history.html
[2]
https://github.com/apache/maven-plugin-tools/blob/master/maven-plugin-report-plugin/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/plugins/plugin/descriptor/EnhancedPluginDescriptorBuilder.java




I remember that we had a discussion that the next base/API version
should be 3.5.4 because it is the first version using
org.apache.maven.resolver:maven-resolver-api [1]. Please don't confuse
API compat with maintenance/support for a specific Maven version. I
believe that we have made this clear more than once.

Is thre anything specific fixed in 3.6.3 behavior you consider crucial
which makes maintenance easier than with 3.5.4?

M

[1]
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/Maven+Ecosystem+Cleanup

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: New year - new challenge - required Maven 3.6.3 as minimal for core Maven Plugins

2024-01-09 Thread Tamás Cservenák

Howdy,

I still think we need to modify few bits here and there:
- we MUST compile against latest maven (3.9.6 currently)
- this thread (as I see) is about "minimal prerequisite" for plugin (so
POM/prerequisite)
- to address issues Slawek brought up, we need at least to modify this
stanza in CI:
https://github.com/apache/maven-gh-actions-shared/blob/v3/.github/workflows/maven-verify.yml#L50
and build with "minimal prerequisite" and "current" at least, so matrix of
Maven would be generally array [ "3.6.3", "3.9.6" ] as this would catch any
problem Slawek brought up

As if we keep building against versions released 2-5-10 years ago, whatever
we deprecate in 3.9.x is never picked up.

Thanks
T


On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 9:13 AM Slawomir Jaranowski 
wrote:

> pt., 5 sty 2024 o 20:49 Slawomir Jaranowski 
> napisał(a):
>
> >
> >
> > pt., 5 sty 2024 o 16:17 Michael Osipov  napisał(a):
> >
> >> On 2024/01/05 14:03:11 Slawomir Jaranowski wrote:
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > My summary for this discussion:
> >> >
> >> > No objection for change: Tamás Cservenák, Anders Hammar, Olivier Lamy,
> >> > Sylwester Lachiewicz, Jorge Solórzano, Gary Gregory, Hervé Boutemy
> >> >
> >> > Michael Osipov - had a questions but I assume that is no -1 from him
> >>
> >> Clearly not -1, I just want to see a plan before I give a reasonable
> vote.
> >>
> >>
> > Can you remember me what plan or procedure we have followed during
> > switching plugins requirements to 3.2.5.
> >
> >
>
>  Michael kindly remember - what plan do you want to see?
>
> For me is:
>  - update documentation - https://github.com/apache/maven-site/pull/484
>  - announce to users
>  - start using 3.6.3 in plugins, I don't think we need a special releases
> cycles with such updates for all plugins, we release new version when is
> needed, requested and so on
>
> I don't want to wait forever for it.
>
> > So:
> >> >
> >> > I would like to not categorize cora and not core plugins - simply we
> >> have a
> >> > list of plugins which is maintain by Maven team:
> >> > https://maven.apache.org/plugins/index.html
> >>
> >> We have that already in the above mention page..
> >>
> >> > I will send a dedicated email to the dev and users list about plans.
> >>
> >> Can you prepare a draft first, please?
> >>
> >>
> > Yes I can prepare one.. but old email in such cases like make version EOL
> > or switching requirements for plugins will be helpful.
> >
> >
> >
> >> > I will update documentations and sites about new requirements:
> >> >  - https://maven.apache.org/developers/compatibility-plan.html
> >> >  - https://maven.apache.org/docs/history.html
> >> >  -
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/Maven+Ecosystem+Cleanup
> >> >
> >> > With nexts release of plugins we should add "Requirements History"
> >> >
> >> > We have a list of current Plugins requirements:
> >> >
> >>
> https://ci-maven.apache.org/job/Maven/job/maven-box/job/maven-dist-tool/job/master/site/dist-tool-prerequisites.html
> >>
> >> Lookting at these, I'd like to see the retirement of all 2.2.1
> compatible
> >> plugins. No one found the time/motivation/need to left them to 3.x. We
> >> should clear the premises before we raise the bar otherwise that does
> not
> >> look good at all.
> >>
> >> Thanks for working on this...
> >>
> >> M
> >>
> >> -
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
> >>
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Sławomir Jaranowski
> >
>
>
> --
> Sławomir Jaranowski
>

Re: New year - new challenge - required Maven 3.6.3 as minimal for core Maven Plugins

2024-01-09 Thread Slawomir Jaranowski

pt., 5 sty 2024 o 20:49 Slawomir Jaranowski 
napisał(a):

>
>
> pt., 5 sty 2024 o 16:17 Michael Osipov  napisał(a):
>
>> On 2024/01/05 14:03:11 Slawomir Jaranowski wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > My summary for this discussion:
>> >
>> > No objection for change: Tamás Cservenák, Anders Hammar, Olivier Lamy,
>> > Sylwester Lachiewicz, Jorge Solórzano, Gary Gregory, Hervé Boutemy
>> >
>> > Michael Osipov - had a questions but I assume that is no -1 from him
>>
>> Clearly not -1, I just want to see a plan before I give a reasonable vote.
>>
>>
> Can you remember me what plan or procedure we have followed during
> switching plugins requirements to 3.2.5.
>
>

 Michael kindly remember - what plan do you want to see?

For me is:
 - update documentation - https://github.com/apache/maven-site/pull/484
 - announce to users
 - start using 3.6.3 in plugins, I don't think we need a special releases
cycles with such updates for all plugins, we release new version when is
needed, requested and so on

I don't want to wait forever for it.

> So:
>> >
>> > I would like to not categorize cora and not core plugins - simply we
>> have a
>> > list of plugins which is maintain by Maven team:
>> > https://maven.apache.org/plugins/index.html
>>
>> We have that already in the above mention page..
>>
>> > I will send a dedicated email to the dev and users list about plans.
>>
>> Can you prepare a draft first, please?
>>
>>
> Yes I can prepare one.. but old email in such cases like make version EOL
> or switching requirements for plugins will be helpful.
>
>
>
>> > I will update documentations and sites about new requirements:
>> >  - https://maven.apache.org/developers/compatibility-plan.html
>> >  - https://maven.apache.org/docs/history.html
>> >  -
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/Maven+Ecosystem+Cleanup
>> >
>> > With nexts release of plugins we should add "Requirements History"
>> >
>> > We have a list of current Plugins requirements:
>> >
>> https://ci-maven.apache.org/job/Maven/job/maven-box/job/maven-dist-tool/job/master/site/dist-tool-prerequisites.html
>>
>> Lookting at these, I'd like to see the retirement of all 2.2.1 compatible
>> plugins. No one found the time/motivation/need to left them to 3.x. We
>> should clear the premises before we raise the bar otherwise that does not
>> look good at all.
>>
>> Thanks for working on this...
>>
>> M
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> --
> Sławomir Jaranowski
>


-- 
Sławomir Jaranowski

Re: New year - new challenge - required Maven 3.6.3 as minimal for core Maven Plugins

2024-01-05 Thread Slawomir Jaranowski

pt., 5 sty 2024 o 16:17 Michael Osipov  napisał(a):

> On 2024/01/05 14:03:11 Slawomir Jaranowski wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > My summary for this discussion:
> >
> > No objection for change: Tamás Cservenák, Anders Hammar, Olivier Lamy,
> > Sylwester Lachiewicz, Jorge Solórzano, Gary Gregory, Hervé Boutemy
> >
> > Michael Osipov - had a questions but I assume that is no -1 from him
>
> Clearly not -1, I just want to see a plan before I give a reasonable vote.
>
>
Can you remember me what plan or procedure we have followed during
switching plugins requirements to 3.2.5.


> > So:
> >
> > I would like to not categorize cora and not core plugins - simply we
> have a
> > list of plugins which is maintain by Maven team:
> > https://maven.apache.org/plugins/index.html
>
> We have that already in the above mention page..
>
> > I will send a dedicated email to the dev and users list about plans.
>
> Can you prepare a draft first, please?
>
>
Yes I can prepare one.. but old email in such cases like make version EOL
or switching requirements for plugins will be helpful.



> > I will update documentations and sites about new requirements:
> >  - https://maven.apache.org/developers/compatibility-plan.html
> >  - https://maven.apache.org/docs/history.html
> >  -
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/Maven+Ecosystem+Cleanup
> >
> > With nexts release of plugins we should add "Requirements History"
> >
> > We have a list of current Plugins requirements:
> >
> https://ci-maven.apache.org/job/Maven/job/maven-box/job/maven-dist-tool/job/master/site/dist-tool-prerequisites.html
>
> Lookting at these, I'd like to see the retirement of all 2.2.1 compatible
> plugins. No one found the time/motivation/need to left them to 3.x. We
> should clear the premises before we raise the bar otherwise that does not
> look good at all.
>
> Thanks for working on this...
>
> M
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
>
>

-- 
Sławomir Jaranowski

Re: New year - new challenge - required Maven 3.6.3 as minimal for core Maven Plugins

2024-01-05 Thread Slawomir Jaranowski

I would like to kindly remember that this thread is not about the JDK
version, if we need such discussion we should start a new thread.

pt., 5 sty 2024 o 18:22 Karl Heinz Marbaise 
napisał(a):

> On 05.01.24 17:02, Michael Osipov wrote:
> > On 2024/01/05 15:52:54 Karl Heinz Marbaise wrote:
> >> ...
> >> On 05.01.24 16:19, Michael Osipov wrote:
> >>> On 2024/01/05 14:37:44 Karl Heinz Marbaise wrote:
>  +1 Also the point JDK11 (maybe even higher JDK17?) for Maven 4.0.0 as
>  minimum runtime requirement..
> >>>
> >>> This reminds me of https://github.com/openssl/openssl/issues/10902
> and it provides very good reasons why not to do it. Maven is a low level
> tool -- as such it has to be available to as many devs as possible.
> >>
> >> Hm.. I have to admit that I don't see the relationship to OpenSSL and
> >> C++ compilers / Perl etc. and which reason do you have in mind?
> >
> > It is about replacing Perl with CMake. Perl has a much better
> availability than CMake...
>
> And where is the relationship to Maven? Apart from that Perl is not that
> available on a lot of systems (the last 10 years have changed that)...
> today Python is often more available than Perl... which would bring
> CMake back into the game...
>
> Furthermore not many people are building Curl from sources... I would
> say 99% of people consume them via their package manager (dnf, yum, apt
> etc.) of their distributions or via flatpak or alike...Who is building
> from source today?
>
> So I don't see here the in relationship to Maven... or are we talking
> about bootstrapping Maven from source without pre existing Maven/Ant etc. ?
>
> >
> >> But for Maven 4. I see no problem in upgrading the minimum requirement
> >> to JDK 17 (runtime)... If people can not upgrade (for whatever reason)
> >> they can continue to use Maven 3.X ... Also as I mentioned several times
> >> before even with JDK 17 you can build code for java 7... and if that is
> >> not sufficient you can use Toolchain... (also mentioned several times
> >> before)...
> >>
> >> Apart from that if I take that argument in consequence (also mentioned
> >> several times before)... than we have to stop any upgrade in JDK minimum
> >> version and go back to JDK 1.5 or even 1.4 (or even less)...because
> >> there are people using those ancient versions...
> >
> > Please don't apply our possiblites to others and don't make any
> assumptions what others can or cannot do. Rasing to 17 w/o massively
> rewriting core to benefit from post-8 constructs a pure lie to ourselves.
> We cannot even keep JIRA issue count low. I'd really focus on what really
> matters.
>
> I have given solutions to solve possible issues... and now I should not
> show possible solutions... very interesting...
>
>
> Why is massively rewriting required? In Maven core (master branch)  is
> already using a lot of JDK 8 parts.. which can be increased of course,
> for example using JDK17 as base line would make it possible to use
> sealed classes, records, var usage etc. only to mention a few... of
> course that will take time no doubt about that...(mentioned several
> times before)...
>
> Also staying on old things (JDK8 is old) will not attract new developers
> which is a thing in particular in relationship to the mentioned part
> about JIRA issues etc. meaning the number of contributors could be
> higher...
>
> Which is from my point of view exactly the opposite argument.. upgrade
> to most recent JDK 17 at min ... or even JDK 21... to get better
> attraction for other possible contributors..
>
>
> >
> >> https://www.jetbrains.com/lp/devecosystem-2023/java/
> >> https://www.jetbrains.com/lp/devecosystem-2022/java/
> >> https://www.jetbrains.com/lp/devecosystem-2021/java/
> >
> > This represents nothing especially not those who aren't or cannot
> advertise what thy use. Never trust statistics you haven't falsified
> yourself.
>
> You should check the
> https://www.jetbrains.com/lp/devecosystem-2022/methodology/ etc. That's
> available for all given reports. You can get the raw data...
>
>
>  > not those who aren't or cannot advertise what thy use.
>
> If they can not use more recent things they can continue to use Maven
> 3... (mentioned before).. that contradicts in itself.. described
> solutions which work and that should not be shown/mentioned...makes no
> sense.
>
> Those statistics mention things like usage of JDK 7, 6 and even 5. What
> is the problem here? Only those reports show that the number of the
> usage for JDK5,6,7 is very low...not to say extremely low...
>
> Based on which argument do you conclude that we can not to upgrade to
> JDK 17  or even to JDK 21: for Maven 4?
>
> 1. It needs time to change things in core
> 2. We would exclude people (discussion about how many?) who can not
> upgrade.
>
>
> Answers to them:
> 1. It has taken time to incorporate changes for JDK 8 in core and
> plugins etc.. and it will take time to change more of course..  no doubt
> about that.
> 2. Mentioned solutions for

Re: New year - new challenge - required Maven 3.6.3 as minimal for core Maven Plugins

2024-01-05 Thread Karl Heinz Marbaise


On 05.01.24 17:02, Michael Osipov wrote:

On 2024/01/05 15:52:54 Karl Heinz Marbaise wrote:

...
On 05.01.24 16:19, Michael Osipov wrote:

On 2024/01/05 14:37:44 Karl Heinz Marbaise wrote:

+1 Also the point JDK11 (maybe even higher JDK17?) for Maven 4.0.0 as
minimum runtime requirement..


This reminds me of https://github.com/openssl/openssl/issues/10902 and it 
provides very good reasons why not to do it. Maven is a low level tool -- as 
such it has to be available to as many devs as possible.


Hm.. I have to admit that I don't see the relationship to OpenSSL and
C++ compilers / Perl etc. and which reason do you have in mind?


It is about replacing Perl with CMake. Perl has a much better availability than 
CMake...


And where is the relationship to Maven? Apart from that Perl is not that
available on a lot of systems (the last 10 years have changed that)...
today Python is often more available than Perl... which would bring
CMake back into the game...

Furthermore not many people are building Curl from sources... I would
say 99% of people consume them via their package manager (dnf, yum, apt
etc.) of their distributions or via flatpak or alike...Who is building
from source today?

So I don't see here the in relationship to Maven... or are we talking
about bootstrapping Maven from source without pre existing Maven/Ant etc. ?




But for Maven 4. I see no problem in upgrading the minimum requirement
to JDK 17 (runtime)... If people can not upgrade (for whatever reason)
they can continue to use Maven 3.X ... Also as I mentioned several times
before even with JDK 17 you can build code for java 7... and if that is
not sufficient you can use Toolchain... (also mentioned several times
before)...

Apart from that if I take that argument in consequence (also mentioned
several times before)... than we have to stop any upgrade in JDK minimum
version and go back to JDK 1.5 or even 1.4 (or even less)...because
there are people using those ancient versions...


Please don't apply our possiblites to others and don't make any assumptions 
what others can or cannot do. Rasing to 17 w/o massively rewriting core to 
benefit from post-8 constructs a pure lie to ourselves. We cannot even keep 
JIRA issue count low. I'd really focus on what really matters.


I have given solutions to solve possible issues... and now I should not
show possible solutions... very interesting...


Why is massively rewriting required? In Maven core (master branch)  is
already using a lot of JDK 8 parts.. which can be increased of course,
for example using JDK17 as base line would make it possible to use
sealed classes, records, var usage etc. only to mention a few... of
course that will take time no doubt about that...(mentioned several
times before)...

Also staying on old things (JDK8 is old) will not attract new developers
which is a thing in particular in relationship to the mentioned part
about JIRA issues etc. meaning the number of contributors could be higher...

Which is from my point of view exactly the opposite argument.. upgrade
to most recent JDK 17 at min ... or even JDK 21... to get better
attraction for other possible contributors..





https://www.jetbrains.com/lp/devecosystem-2023/java/
https://www.jetbrains.com/lp/devecosystem-2022/java/
https://www.jetbrains.com/lp/devecosystem-2021/java/


This represents nothing especially not those who aren't or cannot advertise 
what thy use. Never trust statistics you haven't falsified yourself.


You should check the
https://www.jetbrains.com/lp/devecosystem-2022/methodology/ etc. That's
available for all given reports. You can get the raw data...


> not those who aren't or cannot advertise what thy use.

If they can not use more recent things they can continue to use Maven
3... (mentioned before).. that contradicts in itself.. described
solutions which work and that should not be shown/mentioned...makes no
sense.

Those statistics mention things like usage of JDK 7, 6 and even 5. What
is the problem here? Only those reports show that the number of the
usage for JDK5,6,7 is very low...not to say extremely low...

Based on which argument do you conclude that we can not to upgrade to
JDK 17  or even to JDK 21: for Maven 4?

1. It needs time to change things in core
2. We would exclude people (discussion about how many?) who can not upgrade.


Answers to them:
1. It has taken time to incorporate changes for JDK 8 in core and
plugins etc.. and it will take time to change more of course..  no doubt
about that.
2. Mentioned solutions for that. (continue to use Maven 3.X; Toolchain).

Are those things a reason not to lift ? No.

Furthermore So that means your own arguments are now contradicted...

Many other tools and libraries and frameworks already did that (Spring
Boot 3(JDK 17), Quarkus(JDK 17), Micronaut (JDK 17) etc., . and even
Jakarta EE 11 has set even JDK 21 as baseline...
(https://jakarta.ee/specifications/platform/11/)


Kind regards
Karl Heinz Marbaise




M

Re: New year - new challenge - required Maven 3.6.3 as minimal for core Maven Plugins

2024-01-05 Thread Michael Osipov

On 2024/01/05 15:52:54 Karl Heinz Marbaise wrote:
> ...
> On 05.01.24 16:19, Michael Osipov wrote:
> > On 2024/01/05 14:37:44 Karl Heinz Marbaise wrote:
> >> +1 Also the point JDK11 (maybe even higher JDK17?) for Maven 4.0.0 as
> >> minimum runtime requirement..
> >
> > This reminds me of https://github.com/openssl/openssl/issues/10902 and it 
> > provides very good reasons why not to do it. Maven is a low level tool -- 
> > as such it has to be available to as many devs as possible.
> 
> Hm.. I have to admit that I don't see the relationship to OpenSSL and
> C++ compilers / Perl etc. and which reason do you have in mind?

It is about replacing Perl with CMake. Perl has a much better availability than 
CMake...

> But for Maven 4. I see no problem in upgrading the minimum requirement
> to JDK 17 (runtime)... If people can not upgrade (for whatever reason)
> they can continue to use Maven 3.X ... Also as I mentioned several times
> before even with JDK 17 you can build code for java 7... and if that is
> not sufficient you can use Toolchain... (also mentioned several times
> before)...
> 
> Apart from that if I take that argument in consequence (also mentioned
> several times before)... than we have to stop any upgrade in JDK minimum
> version and go back to JDK 1.5 or even 1.4 (or even less)...because
> there are people using those ancient versions...

Please don't apply our possiblites to others and don't make any assumptions 
what others can or cannot do. Rasing to 17 w/o massively rewriting core to 
benefit from post-8 constructs a pure lie to ourselves. We cannot even keep 
JIRA issue count low. I'd really focus on what really matters.

> https://www.jetbrains.com/lp/devecosystem-2023/java/
> https://www.jetbrains.com/lp/devecosystem-2022/java/
> https://www.jetbrains.com/lp/devecosystem-2021/java/

This represents nothing especially not those who aren't or cannot advertise 
what thy use. Never trust statistics you haven't falsified yourself.

M

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: New year - new challenge - required Maven 3.6.3 as minimal for core Maven Plugins

2024-01-05 Thread Karl Heinz Marbaise


...
On 05.01.24 16:19, Michael Osipov wrote:

On 2024/01/05 14:37:44 Karl Heinz Marbaise wrote:

+1 Also the point JDK11 (maybe even higher JDK17?) for Maven 4.0.0 as
minimum runtime requirement..


This reminds me of https://github.com/openssl/openssl/issues/10902 and it 
provides very good reasons why not to do it. Maven is a low level tool -- as 
such it has to be available to as many devs as possible.


Hm.. I have to admit that I don't see the relationship to OpenSSL and
C++ compilers / Perl etc. and which reason do you have in mind?


But for Maven 4. I see no problem in upgrading the minimum requirement
to JDK 17 (runtime)... If people can not upgrade (for whatever reason)
they can continue to use Maven 3.X ... Also as I mentioned several times
before even with JDK 17 you can build code for java 7... and if that is
not sufficient you can use Toolchain... (also mentioned several times
before)...

Apart from that if I take that argument in consequence (also mentioned
several times before)... than we have to stop any upgrade in JDK minimum
version and go back to JDK 1.5 or even 1.4 (or even less)...because
there are people using those ancient versions...


https://www.jetbrains.com/lp/devecosystem-2023/java/
https://www.jetbrains.com/lp/devecosystem-2022/java/
https://www.jetbrains.com/lp/devecosystem-2021/java/

Kind regards
Karl Heinz Marbaise



M

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: New year - new challenge - required Maven 3.6.3 as minimal for core Maven Plugins

2024-01-05 Thread Michael Osipov

On 2024/01/05 14:37:44 Karl Heinz Marbaise wrote:
> +1 Also the point JDK11 (maybe even higher JDK17?) for Maven 4.0.0 as
> minimum runtime requirement..

This reminds me of https://github.com/openssl/openssl/issues/10902 and it 
provides very good reasons why not to do it. Maven is a low level tool -- as 
such it has to be available to as many devs as possible.

M

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: New year - new challenge - required Maven 3.6.3 as minimal for core Maven Plugins

2024-01-05 Thread Michael Osipov

On 2024/01/05 14:03:11 Slawomir Jaranowski wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> My summary for this discussion:
> 
> No objection for change: Tamás Cservenák, Anders Hammar, Olivier Lamy,
> Sylwester Lachiewicz, Jorge Solórzano, Gary Gregory, Hervé Boutemy
> 
> Michael Osipov - had a questions but I assume that is no -1 from him

Clearly not -1, I just want to see a plan before I give a reasonable vote.

> So:
> 
> I would like to not categorize cora and not core plugins - simply we have a
> list of plugins which is maintain by Maven team:
> https://maven.apache.org/plugins/index.html

We have that already in the above mention page..

> I will send a dedicated email to the dev and users list about plans.

Can you prepare a draft first, please?

> I will update documentations and sites about new requirements:
>  - https://maven.apache.org/developers/compatibility-plan.html
>  - https://maven.apache.org/docs/history.html
>  - https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/Maven+Ecosystem+Cleanup
> 
> With nexts release of plugins we should add "Requirements History"
> 
> We have a list of current Plugins requirements:
> https://ci-maven.apache.org/job/Maven/job/maven-box/job/maven-dist-tool/job/master/site/dist-tool-prerequisites.html

Lookting at these, I'd like to see the retirement of all 2.2.1 compatible 
plugins. No one found the time/motivation/need to left them to 3.x. We should 
clear the premises before we raise the bar otherwise that does not look good at 
all.

Thanks for working on this...

M

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: New year - new challenge - required Maven 3.6.3 as minimal for core Maven Plugins

2024-01-05 Thread Karl Heinz Marbaise


Hi,

I'm the same opinion to upgrade to the most recent Maven 3.X version..
for the plugins... +1 (but I'm ok also to use Maven 3.6.3 as minimum)..


+1 Also the point JDK11 (maybe even higher JDK17?) for Maven 4.0.0 as
minimum runtime requirement..


Kind regards
Karl Heinz Marbaise

On 31.12.23 00:54, Tamás Cservenák wrote:

+1 to Jorge.

As I understand it, this is the "minimal version supported" (prerequisite)
we talk about here. But imo 3.x plugins should compile against lastest 3.x
Maven.

T

On Sun, Dec 31, 2023, 00:35 Jorge Solórzano  wrote:


I know that a build tool is different from a framework, but we are again
missing the point here, is not about framework vs build tools, the point is
that newer projects already require new Java versions, and if legacy
projects require using an old Java version, then those projects will still
be using Maven 3.x anyway and that is perfectly fine. What should be the
threshold to move to a newer Java version? (I'm talking about using Java 11
on Maven 4.0, not on 3.x).

Sorry I didn't want to hijack this thread for the Java version discussion,
yet I wish to know what is the benefit of "supporting" plugins on older
versions of Maven, I'm asking as a user since I'm not a Maven core
developer, PMC,r committer, just an occasional contributor, and again, I
might be missing something, but what is the benefit of updating plugins on
a project and using an older version of Maven? As a user is weird to me
that Maven versions prior 3.8.x are EOL, yet plugins provide Maven API
compatibility down to 3.2.5.

It seems that is indeed a new challenge to require Maven 3.6.3 as minimal
for core plugins ;)

Regards and Happy New Year!


On Sat, Dec 30, 2023 at 6:30 PM Michael Osipov 
wrote:


Am 2023-12-30 um 16:43 schrieb Jorge Solórzano:

I'm a bit confused here, why would anyone update Maven plugins in a

project

and NOT update Maven Core? Older versions of Maven are EOL, is expected
that Maven Core is backward-compatible on minor releases so updating

Maven

Core should be straightforward. I might be missing something but I

don't

see a scenario where someone updates plugins but does not update Maven
itself, I would expect the opposite, it should be more common to update
Maven core than plugins (although that is just my perception).

The question remains: Why should we use 3.5.4 instead of 3.6.3 as a

minimum

in plugins? don't get me wrong, I don't mind if we use 3.5.4 instead of
3.6.3 if the maintenance/support is the same, but knowing that CI uses
Maven 3.6.3 and newer, and without knowing why plugins should be

supported

on 3.5.4, my vote will go to use 3.6.3.

This discussion reminds me of the minimum required Java version, there

was

even an informal poll
 with more

than

80% asking for newer Java releases, and I would love to see Maven 4.0
require at least Java 11, but here we are, one year later and still on

Java

8 because some prefer to be working with Java 7 or even Java 6. The
ecosystem is moving forward, SpringBoot, Quarkus, Jakarta EE, and some
dependencies are slowly moving to at least Java 11, if a project

requires

Java 8 (for whatever reason), then it will remain on Maven 3.x, moving

to

Java 11 is conservative enough for Maven 4.0.


Those who are working with JDK less than 8 are already a minority...

https://www.jetbrains.com/lp/devecosystem-2023/java/

Also the usage of JDK 17 is increasing... I expect that JDK21 will
increase over this year...



You are confusing a low-level tool which should be accessible to
everyone compared to a specific framework. Regarding Spring Boot: I
consider that a total dick move dropping javax namespace support for a
huge user base. Regardless of the Java version.

M









-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: New year - new challenge - required Maven 3.6.3 as minimal for core Maven Plugins

2024-01-05 Thread Slawomir Jaranowski

Hi,

My summary for this discussion:

No objection for change: Tamás Cservenák, Anders Hammar, Olivier Lamy,
Sylwester Lachiewicz, Jorge Solórzano, Gary Gregory, Hervé Boutemy

Michael Osipov - had a questions but I assume that is no -1 from him

So:

I would like to not categorize cora and not core plugins - simply we have a
list of plugins which is maintain by Maven team:
https://maven.apache.org/plugins/index.html

I will send a dedicated email to the dev and users list about plans.

I will update documentations and sites about new requirements:
 - https://maven.apache.org/developers/compatibility-plan.html
 - https://maven.apache.org/docs/history.html
 - https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/Maven+Ecosystem+Cleanup

With nexts release of plugins we should add "Requirements History"

We have a list of current Plugins requirements:
https://ci-maven.apache.org/job/Maven/job/maven-box/job/maven-dist-tool/job/master/site/dist-tool-prerequisites.html


pt., 5 sty 2024 o 08:57 Hervé Boutemy  napisał(a):

> for the records, "Maven Plugins Compatibility Plan" strategy is stored in
>  https://maven.apache.org/developers/compatibility-plan.html
>
> = the doc to refer to and update if necessary after the current discussion
>
> Le vendredi 29 décembre 2023, 14:42:17 CET Slawomir Jaranowski a écrit :
> > Hi,
> >
> > Last year we mark all Maven versions 3.6.x and older as EOL [1]
> >
> > But we still try to support minimal API version for Core Maven Plugins as
> > 3.2.5
> >
> > I would like to  propose to sich it for at least to 3.6.3
> >
> > Reasonable reasons: (for me)
> >  - for standard CI build we use Maven 3.6.3 and newer
> >  - many of external plugins, like MojoHaus are switched to 3.6.3
> >  - we have a hacks in code to try support old version in plugin, like
> > in: EnhancedPluginDescriptorBuilder in plugin-tools [2], we can cleanup
> > such code
> > - I don't believe to someone want to do more fixes for EOL Maven version
> in
> > plugins - so we should be a honest for users
> > - and we should go forward
> >
> > [1] https://maven.apache.org/docs/history.html
> > [2]
> >
> https://github.com/apache/maven-plugin-tools/blob/master/maven-plugin-report
> >
> -plugin/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/plugins/plugin/descriptor/EnhancedPlu
> > ginDescriptorBuilder.java
>
>
>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
>
>

-- 
Sławomir Jaranowski

Re: New year - new challenge - required Maven 3.6.3 as minimal for core Maven Plugins

2024-01-04 Thread Hervé Boutemy

for the records, "Maven Plugins Compatibility Plan" strategy is stored in
 https://maven.apache.org/developers/compatibility-plan.html

= the doc to refer to and update if necessary after the current discussion

Le vendredi 29 décembre 2023, 14:42:17 CET Slawomir Jaranowski a écrit :
> Hi,
> 
> Last year we mark all Maven versions 3.6.x and older as EOL [1]
> 
> But we still try to support minimal API version for Core Maven Plugins as
> 3.2.5
> 
> I would like to  propose to sich it for at least to 3.6.3
> 
> Reasonable reasons: (for me)
>  - for standard CI build we use Maven 3.6.3 and newer
>  - many of external plugins, like MojoHaus are switched to 3.6.3
>  - we have a hacks in code to try support old version in plugin, like
> in: EnhancedPluginDescriptorBuilder in plugin-tools [2], we can cleanup
> such code
> - I don't believe to someone want to do more fixes for EOL Maven version in
> plugins - so we should be a honest for users
> - and we should go forward
> 
> [1] https://maven.apache.org/docs/history.html
> [2]
> https://github.com/apache/maven-plugin-tools/blob/master/maven-plugin-report
> -plugin/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/plugins/plugin/descriptor/EnhancedPlu
> ginDescriptorBuilder.java





-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: New year - new challenge - required Maven 3.6.3 as minimal for core Maven Plugins

2023-12-30 Thread Tamás Cservenák

+1 to Jorge.

As I understand it, this is the "minimal version supported" (prerequisite)
we talk about here. But imo 3.x plugins should compile against lastest 3.x
Maven.

T

On Sun, Dec 31, 2023, 00:35 Jorge Solórzano  wrote:

> I know that a build tool is different from a framework, but we are again
> missing the point here, is not about framework vs build tools, the point is
> that newer projects already require new Java versions, and if legacy
> projects require using an old Java version, then those projects will still
> be using Maven 3.x anyway and that is perfectly fine. What should be the
> threshold to move to a newer Java version? (I'm talking about using Java 11
> on Maven 4.0, not on 3.x).
>
> Sorry I didn't want to hijack this thread for the Java version discussion,
> yet I wish to know what is the benefit of "supporting" plugins on older
> versions of Maven, I'm asking as a user since I'm not a Maven core
> developer, PMC,r committer, just an occasional contributor, and again, I
> might be missing something, but what is the benefit of updating plugins on
> a project and using an older version of Maven? As a user is weird to me
> that Maven versions prior 3.8.x are EOL, yet plugins provide Maven API
> compatibility down to 3.2.5.
>
> It seems that is indeed a new challenge to require Maven 3.6.3 as minimal
> for core plugins ;)
>
> Regards and Happy New Year!
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 30, 2023 at 6:30 PM Michael Osipov 
> wrote:
>
> > Am 2023-12-30 um 16:43 schrieb Jorge Solórzano:
> > > I'm a bit confused here, why would anyone update Maven plugins in a
> > project
> > > and NOT update Maven Core? Older versions of Maven are EOL, is expected
> > > that Maven Core is backward-compatible on minor releases so updating
> > Maven
> > > Core should be straightforward. I might be missing something but I
> don't
> > > see a scenario where someone updates plugins but does not update Maven
> > > itself, I would expect the opposite, it should be more common to update
> > > Maven core than plugins (although that is just my perception).
> > >
> > > The question remains: Why should we use 3.5.4 instead of 3.6.3 as a
> > minimum
> > > in plugins? don't get me wrong, I don't mind if we use 3.5.4 instead of
> > > 3.6.3 if the maintenance/support is the same, but knowing that CI uses
> > > Maven 3.6.3 and newer, and without knowing why plugins should be
> > supported
> > > on 3.5.4, my vote will go to use 3.6.3.
> > >
> > > This discussion reminds me of the minimum required Java version, there
> > was
> > > even an informal poll
> > >  with more
> > than
> > > 80% asking for newer Java releases, and I would love to see Maven 4.0
> > > require at least Java 11, but here we are, one year later and still on
> > Java
> > > 8 because some prefer to be working with Java 7 or even Java 6. The
> > > ecosystem is moving forward, SpringBoot, Quarkus, Jakarta EE, and some
> > > dependencies are slowly moving to at least Java 11, if a project
> requires
> > > Java 8 (for whatever reason), then it will remain on Maven 3.x, moving
> to
> > > Java 11 is conservative enough for Maven 4.0.
> >
> > You are confusing a low-level tool which should be accessible to
> > everyone compared to a specific framework. Regarding Spring Boot: I
> > consider that a total dick move dropping javax namespace support for a
> > huge user base. Regardless of the Java version.
> >
> > M
> >
> >
>

Re: New year - new challenge - required Maven 3.6.3 as minimal for core Maven Plugins

2023-12-30 Thread Jorge Solórzano

I know that a build tool is different from a framework, but we are again
missing the point here, is not about framework vs build tools, the point is
that newer projects already require new Java versions, and if legacy
projects require using an old Java version, then those projects will still
be using Maven 3.x anyway and that is perfectly fine. What should be the
threshold to move to a newer Java version? (I'm talking about using Java 11
on Maven 4.0, not on 3.x).

Sorry I didn't want to hijack this thread for the Java version discussion,
yet I wish to know what is the benefit of "supporting" plugins on older
versions of Maven, I'm asking as a user since I'm not a Maven core
developer, PMC,r committer, just an occasional contributor, and again, I
might be missing something, but what is the benefit of updating plugins on
a project and using an older version of Maven? As a user is weird to me
that Maven versions prior 3.8.x are EOL, yet plugins provide Maven API
compatibility down to 3.2.5.

It seems that is indeed a new challenge to require Maven 3.6.3 as minimal
for core plugins ;)

Regards and Happy New Year!

On Sat, Dec 30, 2023 at 6:30 PM Michael Osipov  wrote:

> Am 2023-12-30 um 16:43 schrieb Jorge Solórzano:
> > I'm a bit confused here, why would anyone update Maven plugins in a
> project
> > and NOT update Maven Core? Older versions of Maven are EOL, is expected
> > that Maven Core is backward-compatible on minor releases so updating
> Maven
> > Core should be straightforward. I might be missing something but I don't
> > see a scenario where someone updates plugins but does not update Maven
> > itself, I would expect the opposite, it should be more common to update
> > Maven core than plugins (although that is just my perception).
> >
> > The question remains: Why should we use 3.5.4 instead of 3.6.3 as a
> minimum
> > in plugins? don't get me wrong, I don't mind if we use 3.5.4 instead of
> > 3.6.3 if the maintenance/support is the same, but knowing that CI uses
> > Maven 3.6.3 and newer, and without knowing why plugins should be
> supported
> > on 3.5.4, my vote will go to use 3.6.3.
> >
> > This discussion reminds me of the minimum required Java version, there
> was
> > even an informal poll
> >  with more
> than
> > 80% asking for newer Java releases, and I would love to see Maven 4.0
> > require at least Java 11, but here we are, one year later and still on
> Java
> > 8 because some prefer to be working with Java 7 or even Java 6. The
> > ecosystem is moving forward, SpringBoot, Quarkus, Jakarta EE, and some
> > dependencies are slowly moving to at least Java 11, if a project requires
> > Java 8 (for whatever reason), then it will remain on Maven 3.x, moving to
> > Java 11 is conservative enough for Maven 4.0.
>
> You are confusing a low-level tool which should be accessible to
> everyone compared to a specific framework. Regarding Spring Boot: I
> consider that a total dick move dropping javax namespace support for a
> huge user base. Regardless of the Java version.
>
> M
>
>

Re: New year - new challenge - required Maven 3.6.3 as minimal for core Maven Plugins

2023-12-30 Thread Michael Osipov


Am 2023-12-30 um 16:43 schrieb Jorge Solórzano:

I'm a bit confused here, why would anyone update Maven plugins in a project
and NOT update Maven Core? Older versions of Maven are EOL, is expected
that Maven Core is backward-compatible on minor releases so updating Maven
Core should be straightforward. I might be missing something but I don't
see a scenario where someone updates plugins but does not update Maven
itself, I would expect the opposite, it should be more common to update
Maven core than plugins (although that is just my perception).

The question remains: Why should we use 3.5.4 instead of 3.6.3 as a minimum
in plugins? don't get me wrong, I don't mind if we use 3.5.4 instead of
3.6.3 if the maintenance/support is the same, but knowing that CI uses
Maven 3.6.3 and newer, and without knowing why plugins should be supported
on 3.5.4, my vote will go to use 3.6.3.

This discussion reminds me of the minimum required Java version, there was
even an informal poll
 with more than
80% asking for newer Java releases, and I would love to see Maven 4.0
require at least Java 11, but here we are, one year later and still on Java
8 because some prefer to be working with Java 7 or even Java 6. The
ecosystem is moving forward, SpringBoot, Quarkus, Jakarta EE, and some
dependencies are slowly moving to at least Java 11, if a project requires
Java 8 (for whatever reason), then it will remain on Maven 3.x, moving to
Java 11 is conservative enough for Maven 4.0.


You are confusing a low-level tool which should be accessible to 
everyone compared to a specific framework. Regarding Spring Boot: I 
consider that a total dick move dropping javax namespace support for a 
huge user base. Regardless of the Java version.


M

Re: New year - new challenge - required Maven 3.6.3 as minimal for core Maven Plugins

2023-12-30 Thread Gary Gregory

FWIW, at work, we just went from Java 8 to 17, and we are a pretty
conservative organization.

Gary

On Sat, Dec 30, 2023, 10:44 AM Jorge Solórzano  wrote:

> I'm a bit confused here, why would anyone update Maven plugins in a project
> and NOT update Maven Core? Older versions of Maven are EOL, is expected
> that Maven Core is backward-compatible on minor releases so updating Maven
> Core should be straightforward. I might be missing something but I don't
> see a scenario where someone updates plugins but does not update Maven
> itself, I would expect the opposite, it should be more common to update
> Maven core than plugins (although that is just my perception).
>
> The question remains: Why should we use 3.5.4 instead of 3.6.3 as a minimum
> in plugins? don't get me wrong, I don't mind if we use 3.5.4 instead of
> 3.6.3 if the maintenance/support is the same, but knowing that CI uses
> Maven 3.6.3 and newer, and without knowing why plugins should be supported
> on 3.5.4, my vote will go to use 3.6.3.
>
> This discussion reminds me of the minimum required Java version, there was
> even an informal poll
>  with more than
> 80% asking for newer Java releases, and I would love to see Maven 4.0
> require at least Java 11, but here we are, one year later and still on Java
> 8 because some prefer to be working with Java 7 or even Java 6. The
> ecosystem is moving forward, SpringBoot, Quarkus, Jakarta EE, and some
> dependencies are slowly moving to at least Java 11, if a project requires
> Java 8 (for whatever reason), then it will remain on Maven 3.x, moving to
> Java 11 is conservative enough for Maven 4.0.
>
> Regards.
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 30, 2023 at 1:54 PM Michael Osipov 
> wrote:
>
> > Am 2023-12-30 um 11:42 schrieb Slawomir Jaranowski:
> > > sob., 30 gru 2023 o 10:43 Michael Osipov 
> > napisał(a):
> > >
> > >> Am 2023-12-30 um 09:24 schrieb Slawomir Jaranowski:
> > >>> pt., 29 gru 2023 o 18:40 Michael Osipov 
> > >> napisał(a):
> > >>>
> >  Am 2023-12-29 um 14:42 schrieb Slawomir Jaranowski:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Last year we mark all Maven versions 3.6.x and older as EOL [1]
> > >
> > > But we still try to support minimal API version for Core Maven
> > Plugins
> > >> as
> > > 3.2.5
> > >
> > > I would like to  propose to sich it for at least to 3.6.3
> > >
> > > Reasonable reasons: (for me)
> > > - for standard CI build we use Maven 3.6.3 and newer
> > > - many of external plugins, like MojoHaus are switched to 3.6.3
> > > - we have a hacks in code to try support old version in plugin,
> > like
> > > in: EnhancedPluginDescriptorBuilder in plugin-tools [2], we can
> > cleanup
> > > such code
> > > - I don't believe to someone want to do more fixes for EOL Maven
> > >> version
> >  in
> > > plugins - so we should be a honest for users
> > > - and we should go forward
> > >
> > > [1] https://maven.apache.org/docs/history.html
> > > [2]
> > >
> > 
> > >>
> >
> https://github.com/apache/maven-plugin-tools/blob/master/maven-plugin-report-plugin/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/plugins/plugin/descriptor/EnhancedPluginDescriptorBuilder.java
> > >
> > 
> >  I remember that we had a discussion that the next base/API version
> >  should be 3.5.4 because it is the first version using
> >  org.apache.maven.resolver:maven-resolver-api [1]. Please don't
> confuse
> >  API compat with maintenance/support for a specific Maven version. I
> >  believe that we have made this clear more than once.
> > 
> >  Is thre anything specific fixed in 3.6.3 behavior you consider
> crucial
> >  which makes maintenance easier than with 3.5.4?
> > 
> > 
> > >>> I remember the discussion ... and next year we are still on 3.2.5
> > >>>
> > >>> I can not a list what was exactly improved in 3.6.3 against to 3.5.4,
> > >> but I
> > >>> see in mentioned code
> > >>>
> > >>>// clear() is required for maven < 3.6.2
> > >>>mojoDescriptor.getParameters().clear();
> > >>
> > >> This one is moot and incorrect. I will change the comment. The real
> > >> improvement has been done by Tamás in 4.0.0-alpha-1:
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> https://github.com/apache/maven/commit/cc51006f2973356a1046ae0757325d5e9be75327
> > >>
> > >>> So my question is:
> > >>>
> > >>> Why should we use 3.5.4 instead of 3.6.4 as minimum in plugins?
> > >>
> > >> If you can provide some real examples where 3.6.x is better/easier I
> > >> will happily accept it.
> > >>
> > >>
> > > There is https://github.com/apache/maven-help-plugin/pull/45
> >
> > I am aware of this one, but m-help-p isn't a core plugin, nor bound to a
> > lifecycle phase. For me, this is out of the ordinary.
> >
> > Let's make a compromise: I'd expect that you provide a list of all
> > plugins you consider core ones and this will be announced on dev@ that
> > in X weeks we will switch. Before

Re: New year - new challenge - required Maven 3.6.3 as minimal for core Maven Plugins

2023-12-30 Thread Jorge Solórzano

I'm a bit confused here, why would anyone update Maven plugins in a project
and NOT update Maven Core? Older versions of Maven are EOL, is expected
that Maven Core is backward-compatible on minor releases so updating Maven
Core should be straightforward. I might be missing something but I don't
see a scenario where someone updates plugins but does not update Maven
itself, I would expect the opposite, it should be more common to update
Maven core than plugins (although that is just my perception).

The question remains: Why should we use 3.5.4 instead of 3.6.3 as a minimum
in plugins? don't get me wrong, I don't mind if we use 3.5.4 instead of
3.6.3 if the maintenance/support is the same, but knowing that CI uses
Maven 3.6.3 and newer, and without knowing why plugins should be supported
on 3.5.4, my vote will go to use 3.6.3.

This discussion reminds me of the minimum required Java version, there was
even an informal poll
 with more than
80% asking for newer Java releases, and I would love to see Maven 4.0
require at least Java 11, but here we are, one year later and still on Java
8 because some prefer to be working with Java 7 or even Java 6. The
ecosystem is moving forward, SpringBoot, Quarkus, Jakarta EE, and some
dependencies are slowly moving to at least Java 11, if a project requires
Java 8 (for whatever reason), then it will remain on Maven 3.x, moving to
Java 11 is conservative enough for Maven 4.0.

Regards.

On Sat, Dec 30, 2023 at 1:54 PM Michael Osipov  wrote:

> Am 2023-12-30 um 11:42 schrieb Slawomir Jaranowski:
> > sob., 30 gru 2023 o 10:43 Michael Osipov 
> napisał(a):
> >
> >> Am 2023-12-30 um 09:24 schrieb Slawomir Jaranowski:
> >>> pt., 29 gru 2023 o 18:40 Michael Osipov 
> >> napisał(a):
> >>>
>  Am 2023-12-29 um 14:42 schrieb Slawomir Jaranowski:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Last year we mark all Maven versions 3.6.x and older as EOL [1]
> >
> > But we still try to support minimal API version for Core Maven
> Plugins
> >> as
> > 3.2.5
> >
> > I would like to  propose to sich it for at least to 3.6.3
> >
> > Reasonable reasons: (for me)
> > - for standard CI build we use Maven 3.6.3 and newer
> > - many of external plugins, like MojoHaus are switched to 3.6.3
> > - we have a hacks in code to try support old version in plugin,
> like
> > in: EnhancedPluginDescriptorBuilder in plugin-tools [2], we can
> cleanup
> > such code
> > - I don't believe to someone want to do more fixes for EOL Maven
> >> version
>  in
> > plugins - so we should be a honest for users
> > - and we should go forward
> >
> > [1] https://maven.apache.org/docs/history.html
> > [2]
> >
> 
> >>
> https://github.com/apache/maven-plugin-tools/blob/master/maven-plugin-report-plugin/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/plugins/plugin/descriptor/EnhancedPluginDescriptorBuilder.java
> >
> 
>  I remember that we had a discussion that the next base/API version
>  should be 3.5.4 because it is the first version using
>  org.apache.maven.resolver:maven-resolver-api [1]. Please don't confuse
>  API compat with maintenance/support for a specific Maven version. I
>  believe that we have made this clear more than once.
> 
>  Is thre anything specific fixed in 3.6.3 behavior you consider crucial
>  which makes maintenance easier than with 3.5.4?
> 
> 
> >>> I remember the discussion ... and next year we are still on 3.2.5
> >>>
> >>> I can not a list what was exactly improved in 3.6.3 against to 3.5.4,
> >> but I
> >>> see in mentioned code
> >>>
> >>>// clear() is required for maven < 3.6.2
> >>>mojoDescriptor.getParameters().clear();
> >>
> >> This one is moot and incorrect. I will change the comment. The real
> >> improvement has been done by Tamás in 4.0.0-alpha-1:
> >>
> >>
> https://github.com/apache/maven/commit/cc51006f2973356a1046ae0757325d5e9be75327
> >>
> >>> So my question is:
> >>>
> >>> Why should we use 3.5.4 instead of 3.6.4 as minimum in plugins?
> >>
> >> If you can provide some real examples where 3.6.x is better/easier I
> >> will happily accept it.
> >>
> >>
> > There is https://github.com/apache/maven-help-plugin/pull/45
>
> I am aware of this one, but m-help-p isn't a core plugin, nor bound to a
> lifecycle phase. For me, this is out of the ordinary.
>
> Let's make a compromise: I'd expect that you provide a list of all
> plugins you consider core ones and this will be announced on dev@ that
> in X weeks we will switch. Before the switch if there are open releases
> they should be released and the switch will be done with a minor version
> bump.
> With that people can raise voice/prepare for the change.
>
> M
>

Re: New year - new challenge - required Maven 3.6.3 as minimal for core Maven Plugins

2023-12-30 Thread Michael Osipov


Am 2023-12-30 um 11:42 schrieb Slawomir Jaranowski:

sob., 30 gru 2023 o 10:43 Michael Osipov  napisał(a):


Am 2023-12-30 um 09:24 schrieb Slawomir Jaranowski:

pt., 29 gru 2023 o 18:40 Michael Osipov 

napisał(a):



Am 2023-12-29 um 14:42 schrieb Slawomir Jaranowski:

Hi,

Last year we mark all Maven versions 3.6.x and older as EOL [1]

But we still try to support minimal API version for Core Maven Plugins

as

3.2.5

I would like to  propose to sich it for at least to 3.6.3

Reasonable reasons: (for me)
- for standard CI build we use Maven 3.6.3 and newer
- many of external plugins, like MojoHaus are switched to 3.6.3
- we have a hacks in code to try support old version in plugin, like
in: EnhancedPluginDescriptorBuilder in plugin-tools [2], we can cleanup
such code
- I don't believe to someone want to do more fixes for EOL Maven

version

in

plugins - so we should be a honest for users
- and we should go forward

[1] https://maven.apache.org/docs/history.html
[2]




https://github.com/apache/maven-plugin-tools/blob/master/maven-plugin-report-plugin/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/plugins/plugin/descriptor/EnhancedPluginDescriptorBuilder.java




I remember that we had a discussion that the next base/API version
should be 3.5.4 because it is the first version using
org.apache.maven.resolver:maven-resolver-api [1]. Please don't confuse
API compat with maintenance/support for a specific Maven version. I
believe that we have made this clear more than once.

Is thre anything specific fixed in 3.6.3 behavior you consider crucial
which makes maintenance easier than with 3.5.4?



I remember the discussion ... and next year we are still on 3.2.5

I can not a list what was exactly improved in 3.6.3 against to 3.5.4,

but I

see in mentioned code

   // clear() is required for maven < 3.6.2
   mojoDescriptor.getParameters().clear();


This one is moot and incorrect. I will change the comment. The real
improvement has been done by Tamás in 4.0.0-alpha-1:

https://github.com/apache/maven/commit/cc51006f2973356a1046ae0757325d5e9be75327


So my question is:

Why should we use 3.5.4 instead of 3.6.4 as minimum in plugins?


If you can provide some real examples where 3.6.x is better/easier I
will happily accept it.



There is https://github.com/apache/maven-help-plugin/pull/45


I am aware of this one, but m-help-p isn't a core plugin, nor bound to a 
lifecycle phase. For me, this is out of the ordinary.


Let's make a compromise: I'd expect that you provide a list of all 
plugins you consider core ones and this will be announced on dev@ that 
in X weeks we will switch. Before the switch if there are open releases 
they should be released and the switch will be done with a minor version 
bump.

With that people can raise voice/prepare for the change.

M

Re: New year - new challenge - required Maven 3.6.3 as minimal for core Maven Plugins

2023-12-30 Thread Sylwester Lachiewicz

+1
Sylwester

sob., 30 gru 2023 o 11:43 Slawomir Jaranowski 
napisał(a):

> sob., 30 gru 2023 o 10:43 Michael Osipov  napisał(a):
>
> > Am 2023-12-30 um 09:24 schrieb Slawomir Jaranowski:
> > > pt., 29 gru 2023 o 18:40 Michael Osipov 
> > napisał(a):
> > >
> > >> Am 2023-12-29 um 14:42 schrieb Slawomir Jaranowski:
> > >>> Hi,
> > >>>
> > >>> Last year we mark all Maven versions 3.6.x and older as EOL [1]
> > >>>
> > >>> But we still try to support minimal API version for Core Maven
> Plugins
> > as
> > >>> 3.2.5
> > >>>
> > >>> I would like to  propose to sich it for at least to 3.6.3
> > >>>
> > >>> Reasonable reasons: (for me)
> > >>>- for standard CI build we use Maven 3.6.3 and newer
> > >>>- many of external plugins, like MojoHaus are switched to 3.6.3
> > >>>- we have a hacks in code to try support old version in plugin,
> like
> > >>> in: EnhancedPluginDescriptorBuilder in plugin-tools [2], we can
> cleanup
> > >>> such code
> > >>> - I don't believe to someone want to do more fixes for EOL Maven
> > version
> > >> in
> > >>> plugins - so we should be a honest for users
> > >>> - and we should go forward
> > >>>
> > >>> [1] https://maven.apache.org/docs/history.html
> > >>> [2]
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
> https://github.com/apache/maven-plugin-tools/blob/master/maven-plugin-report-plugin/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/plugins/plugin/descriptor/EnhancedPluginDescriptorBuilder.java
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> I remember that we had a discussion that the next base/API version
> > >> should be 3.5.4 because it is the first version using
> > >> org.apache.maven.resolver:maven-resolver-api [1]. Please don't confuse
> > >> API compat with maintenance/support for a specific Maven version. I
> > >> believe that we have made this clear more than once.
> > >>
> > >> Is thre anything specific fixed in 3.6.3 behavior you consider crucial
> > >> which makes maintenance easier than with 3.5.4?
> > >>
> > >>
> > > I remember the discussion ... and next year we are still on 3.2.5
> > >
> > > I can not a list what was exactly improved in 3.6.3 against to 3.5.4,
> > but I
> > > see in mentioned code
> > >
> > >   // clear() is required for maven < 3.6.2
> > >   mojoDescriptor.getParameters().clear();
> >
> > This one is moot and incorrect. I will change the comment. The real
> > improvement has been done by Tamás in 4.0.0-alpha-1:
> >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/maven/commit/cc51006f2973356a1046ae0757325d5e9be75327
> >
> > > So my question is:
> > >
> > > Why should we use 3.5.4 instead of 3.6.4 as minimum in plugins?
> >
> > If you can provide some real examples where 3.6.x is better/easier I
> > will happily accept it.
> >
> >
> There is https://github.com/apache/maven-help-plugin/pull/45
>
>
> > Michael
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
> >
>
>
> --
> Sławomir Jaranowski
>

Re: New year - new challenge - required Maven 3.6.3 as minimal for core Maven Plugins

2023-12-30 Thread Slawomir Jaranowski

sob., 30 gru 2023 o 10:43 Michael Osipov  napisał(a):

> Am 2023-12-30 um 09:24 schrieb Slawomir Jaranowski:
> > pt., 29 gru 2023 o 18:40 Michael Osipov 
> napisał(a):
> >
> >> Am 2023-12-29 um 14:42 schrieb Slawomir Jaranowski:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> Last year we mark all Maven versions 3.6.x and older as EOL [1]
> >>>
> >>> But we still try to support minimal API version for Core Maven Plugins
> as
> >>> 3.2.5
> >>>
> >>> I would like to  propose to sich it for at least to 3.6.3
> >>>
> >>> Reasonable reasons: (for me)
> >>>- for standard CI build we use Maven 3.6.3 and newer
> >>>- many of external plugins, like MojoHaus are switched to 3.6.3
> >>>- we have a hacks in code to try support old version in plugin, like
> >>> in: EnhancedPluginDescriptorBuilder in plugin-tools [2], we can cleanup
> >>> such code
> >>> - I don't believe to someone want to do more fixes for EOL Maven
> version
> >> in
> >>> plugins - so we should be a honest for users
> >>> - and we should go forward
> >>>
> >>> [1] https://maven.apache.org/docs/history.html
> >>> [2]
> >>>
> >>
> https://github.com/apache/maven-plugin-tools/blob/master/maven-plugin-report-plugin/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/plugins/plugin/descriptor/EnhancedPluginDescriptorBuilder.java
> >>>
> >>
> >> I remember that we had a discussion that the next base/API version
> >> should be 3.5.4 because it is the first version using
> >> org.apache.maven.resolver:maven-resolver-api [1]. Please don't confuse
> >> API compat with maintenance/support for a specific Maven version. I
> >> believe that we have made this clear more than once.
> >>
> >> Is thre anything specific fixed in 3.6.3 behavior you consider crucial
> >> which makes maintenance easier than with 3.5.4?
> >>
> >>
> > I remember the discussion ... and next year we are still on 3.2.5
> >
> > I can not a list what was exactly improved in 3.6.3 against to 3.5.4,
> but I
> > see in mentioned code
> >
> >   // clear() is required for maven < 3.6.2
> >   mojoDescriptor.getParameters().clear();
>
> This one is moot and incorrect. I will change the comment. The real
> improvement has been done by Tamás in 4.0.0-alpha-1:
>
> https://github.com/apache/maven/commit/cc51006f2973356a1046ae0757325d5e9be75327
>
> > So my question is:
> >
> > Why should we use 3.5.4 instead of 3.6.4 as minimum in plugins?
>
> If you can provide some real examples where 3.6.x is better/easier I
> will happily accept it.
>
>
There is https://github.com/apache/maven-help-plugin/pull/45


> Michael
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
>


-- 
Sławomir Jaranowski

Re: New year - new challenge - required Maven 3.6.3 as minimal for core Maven Plugins

2023-12-30 Thread Michael Osipov


Am 2023-12-30 um 09:24 schrieb Slawomir Jaranowski:

pt., 29 gru 2023 o 18:40 Michael Osipov  napisał(a):


Am 2023-12-29 um 14:42 schrieb Slawomir Jaranowski:

Hi,

Last year we mark all Maven versions 3.6.x and older as EOL [1]

But we still try to support minimal API version for Core Maven Plugins as
3.2.5

I would like to  propose to sich it for at least to 3.6.3

Reasonable reasons: (for me)
   - for standard CI build we use Maven 3.6.3 and newer
   - many of external plugins, like MojoHaus are switched to 3.6.3
   - we have a hacks in code to try support old version in plugin, like
in: EnhancedPluginDescriptorBuilder in plugin-tools [2], we can cleanup
such code
- I don't believe to someone want to do more fixes for EOL Maven version

in

plugins - so we should be a honest for users
- and we should go forward

[1] https://maven.apache.org/docs/history.html
[2]


https://github.com/apache/maven-plugin-tools/blob/master/maven-plugin-report-plugin/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/plugins/plugin/descriptor/EnhancedPluginDescriptorBuilder.java




I remember that we had a discussion that the next base/API version
should be 3.5.4 because it is the first version using
org.apache.maven.resolver:maven-resolver-api [1]. Please don't confuse
API compat with maintenance/support for a specific Maven version. I
believe that we have made this clear more than once.

Is thre anything specific fixed in 3.6.3 behavior you consider crucial
which makes maintenance easier than with 3.5.4?



I remember the discussion ... and next year we are still on 3.2.5

I can not a list what was exactly improved in 3.6.3 against to 3.5.4, but I
see in mentioned code

  // clear() is required for maven < 3.6.2
  mojoDescriptor.getParameters().clear();


This one is moot and incorrect. I will change the comment. The real 
improvement has been done by Tamás in 4.0.0-alpha-1: 
https://github.com/apache/maven/commit/cc51006f2973356a1046ae0757325d5e9be75327



So my question is:

Why should we use 3.5.4 instead of 3.6.4 as minimum in plugins?


If you can provide some real examples where 3.6.x is better/easier I 
will happily accept it.


Michael

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: New year - new challenge - required Maven 3.6.3 as minimal for core Maven Plugins

2023-12-30 Thread Olivier Lamy

On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 at 18:24, Slawomir Jaranowski
 wrote:
>
> pt., 29 gru 2023 o 18:40 Michael Osipov  napisał(a):
>
> > Am 2023-12-29 um 14:42 schrieb Slawomir Jaranowski:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Last year we mark all Maven versions 3.6.x and older as EOL [1]
> > >
> > > But we still try to support minimal API version for Core Maven Plugins as
> > > 3.2.5
> > >
> > > I would like to  propose to sich it for at least to 3.6.3
> > >
> > > Reasonable reasons: (for me)
> > >   - for standard CI build we use Maven 3.6.3 and newer
> > >   - many of external plugins, like MojoHaus are switched to 3.6.3
> > >   - we have a hacks in code to try support old version in plugin, like
> > > in: EnhancedPluginDescriptorBuilder in plugin-tools [2], we can cleanup
> > > such code
> > > - I don't believe to someone want to do more fixes for EOL Maven version
> > in
> > > plugins - so we should be a honest for users
> > > - and we should go forward
> > >
> > > [1] https://maven.apache.org/docs/history.html
> > > [2]
> > >
> > https://github.com/apache/maven-plugin-tools/blob/master/maven-plugin-report-plugin/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/plugins/plugin/descriptor/EnhancedPluginDescriptorBuilder.java
> > >
> >
> > I remember that we had a discussion that the next base/API version
> > should be 3.5.4 because it is the first version using
> > org.apache.maven.resolver:maven-resolver-api [1]. Please don't confuse
> > API compat with maintenance/support for a specific Maven version. I
> > believe that we have made this clear more than once.
> >
> > Is thre anything specific fixed in 3.6.3 behavior you consider crucial
> > which makes maintenance easier than with 3.5.4?
> >
> >
> I remember the discussion ... and next year we are still on 3.2.5
>
> I can not a list what was exactly improved in 3.6.3 against to 3.5.4, but I
> see in mentioned code
>
>  // clear() is required for maven < 3.6.2
>  mojoDescriptor.getParameters().clear();
>
> So my question is:
>
> Why should we use 3.5.4 instead of 3.6.4 as minimum in plugins?
>

Especially as we do not maintain anymore core 3.5.4 neither 3.6,4 see
https://maven.apache.org/docs/history.html
we could simply align with core versions we still marked as
maintained, and that would make our lives easier.
this doesn't mean we have to migrate everything, but at least this
could  be a rule




>
> M
> >
> > [1]
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/Maven+Ecosystem+Cleanup
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
> >
> >
>
> --
> Sławomir Jaranowski

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: New year - new challenge - required Maven 3.6.3 as minimal for core Maven Plugins

2023-12-30 Thread Slawomir Jaranowski

pt., 29 gru 2023 o 18:40 Michael Osipov  napisał(a):

> Am 2023-12-29 um 14:42 schrieb Slawomir Jaranowski:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Last year we mark all Maven versions 3.6.x and older as EOL [1]
> >
> > But we still try to support minimal API version for Core Maven Plugins as
> > 3.2.5
> >
> > I would like to  propose to sich it for at least to 3.6.3
> >
> > Reasonable reasons: (for me)
> >   - for standard CI build we use Maven 3.6.3 and newer
> >   - many of external plugins, like MojoHaus are switched to 3.6.3
> >   - we have a hacks in code to try support old version in plugin, like
> > in: EnhancedPluginDescriptorBuilder in plugin-tools [2], we can cleanup
> > such code
> > - I don't believe to someone want to do more fixes for EOL Maven version
> in
> > plugins - so we should be a honest for users
> > - and we should go forward
> >
> > [1] https://maven.apache.org/docs/history.html
> > [2]
> >
> https://github.com/apache/maven-plugin-tools/blob/master/maven-plugin-report-plugin/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/plugins/plugin/descriptor/EnhancedPluginDescriptorBuilder.java
> >
>
> I remember that we had a discussion that the next base/API version
> should be 3.5.4 because it is the first version using
> org.apache.maven.resolver:maven-resolver-api [1]. Please don't confuse
> API compat with maintenance/support for a specific Maven version. I
> believe that we have made this clear more than once.
>
> Is thre anything specific fixed in 3.6.3 behavior you consider crucial
> which makes maintenance easier than with 3.5.4?
>
>
I remember the discussion ... and next year we are still on 3.2.5

I can not a list what was exactly improved in 3.6.3 against to 3.5.4, but I
see in mentioned code

 // clear() is required for maven < 3.6.2
 mojoDescriptor.getParameters().clear();

So my question is:

Why should we use 3.5.4 instead of 3.6.4 as minimum in plugins?


M
>
> [1]
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/Maven+Ecosystem+Cleanup
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
>
>

-- 
Sławomir Jaranowski

Re: New year - new challenge - required Maven 3.6.3 as minimal for core Maven Plugins

2023-12-29 Thread Michael Osipov


Am 2023-12-29 um 14:42 schrieb Slawomir Jaranowski:

Hi,

Last year we mark all Maven versions 3.6.x and older as EOL [1]

But we still try to support minimal API version for Core Maven Plugins as
3.2.5

I would like to  propose to sich it for at least to 3.6.3

Reasonable reasons: (for me)
  - for standard CI build we use Maven 3.6.3 and newer
  - many of external plugins, like MojoHaus are switched to 3.6.3
  - we have a hacks in code to try support old version in plugin, like
in: EnhancedPluginDescriptorBuilder in plugin-tools [2], we can cleanup
such code
- I don't believe to someone want to do more fixes for EOL Maven version in
plugins - so we should be a honest for users
- and we should go forward

[1] https://maven.apache.org/docs/history.html
[2]
https://github.com/apache/maven-plugin-tools/blob/master/maven-plugin-report-plugin/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/plugins/plugin/descriptor/EnhancedPluginDescriptorBuilder.java



I remember that we had a discussion that the next base/API version 
should be 3.5.4 because it is the first version using 
org.apache.maven.resolver:maven-resolver-api [1]. Please don't confuse 
API compat with maintenance/support for a specific Maven version. I 
believe that we have made this clear more than once.


Is thre anything specific fixed in 3.6.3 behavior you consider crucial 
which makes maintenance easier than with 3.5.4?


M

[1] 
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/Maven+Ecosystem+Cleanup


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: New year - new challenge - required Maven 3.6.3 as minimal for core Maven Plugins

2023-12-29 Thread Anders Hammar

+1

/Anders

On Fri, Dec 29, 2023 at 2:43 PM Slawomir Jaranowski 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Last year we mark all Maven versions 3.6.x and older as EOL [1]
>
> But we still try to support minimal API version for Core Maven Plugins as
> 3.2.5
>
> I would like to  propose to sich it for at least to 3.6.3
>
> Reasonable reasons: (for me)
>  - for standard CI build we use Maven 3.6.3 and newer
>  - many of external plugins, like MojoHaus are switched to 3.6.3
>  - we have a hacks in code to try support old version in plugin, like
> in: EnhancedPluginDescriptorBuilder in plugin-tools [2], we can cleanup
> such code
> - I don't believe to someone want to do more fixes for EOL Maven version in
> plugins - so we should be a honest for users
> - and we should go forward
>
> [1] https://maven.apache.org/docs/history.html
> [2]
>
> https://github.com/apache/maven-plugin-tools/blob/master/maven-plugin-report-plugin/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/plugins/plugin/descriptor/EnhancedPluginDescriptorBuilder.java
>
> --
> Sławomir Jaranowski
>

Re: New year - new challenge - required Maven 3.6.3 as minimal for core Maven Plugins

2023-12-29 Thread Tamás Cservenák

+1 and Happy New Year to everyone :)

T

On Fri, Dec 29, 2023 at 2:42 PM Slawomir Jaranowski 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Last year we mark all Maven versions 3.6.x and older as EOL [1]
>
> But we still try to support minimal API version for Core Maven Plugins as
> 3.2.5
>
> I would like to  propose to sich it for at least to 3.6.3
>
> Reasonable reasons: (for me)
>  - for standard CI build we use Maven 3.6.3 and newer
>  - many of external plugins, like MojoHaus are switched to 3.6.3
>  - we have a hacks in code to try support old version in plugin, like
> in: EnhancedPluginDescriptorBuilder in plugin-tools [2], we can cleanup
> such code
> - I don't believe to someone want to do more fixes for EOL Maven version in
> plugins - so we should be a honest for users
> - and we should go forward
>
> [1] https://maven.apache.org/docs/history.html
> [2]
>
> https://github.com/apache/maven-plugin-tools/blob/master/maven-plugin-report-plugin/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/plugins/plugin/descriptor/EnhancedPluginDescriptorBuilder.java
>
> --
> Sławomir Jaranowski
>

New year - new challenge - required Maven 3.6.3 as minimal for core Maven Plugins

2023-12-29 Thread Slawomir Jaranowski

Hi,

Last year we mark all Maven versions 3.6.x and older as EOL [1]

But we still try to support minimal API version for Core Maven Plugins as
3.2.5

I would like to  propose to sich it for at least to 3.6.3

Reasonable reasons: (for me)
 - for standard CI build we use Maven 3.6.3 and newer
 - many of external plugins, like MojoHaus are switched to 3.6.3
 - we have a hacks in code to try support old version in plugin, like
in: EnhancedPluginDescriptorBuilder in plugin-tools [2], we can cleanup
such code
- I don't believe to someone want to do more fixes for EOL Maven version in
plugins - so we should be a honest for users
- and we should go forward

[1] https://maven.apache.org/docs/history.html
[2]
https://github.com/apache/maven-plugin-tools/blob/master/maven-plugin-report-plugin/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/plugins/plugin/descriptor/EnhancedPluginDescriptorBuilder.java

-- 
Sławomir Jaranowski

Re: New year - new challenge - required Maven 3.6.3 as minimal for core Maven Plugins

Re: New year - new challenge - required Maven 3.6.3 as minimal for core Maven Plugins

Re: New year - new challenge - required Maven 3.6.3 as minimal for core Maven Plugins

Re: New year - new challenge - required Maven 3.6.3 as minimal for core Maven Plugins

Re: New year - new challenge - required Maven 3.6.3 as minimal for core Maven Plugins

Re: New year - new challenge - required Maven 3.6.3 as minimal for core Maven Plugins

Re: New year - new challenge - required Maven 3.6.3 as minimal for core Maven Plugins

Re: New year - new challenge - required Maven 3.6.3 as minimal for core Maven Plugins

Re: New year - new challenge - required Maven 3.6.3 as minimal for core Maven Plugins

Re: New year - new challenge - required Maven 3.6.3 as minimal for core Maven Plugins

Re: New year - new challenge - required Maven 3.6.3 as minimal for core Maven Plugins

Re: New year - new challenge - required Maven 3.6.3 as minimal for core Maven Plugins

Re: New year - new challenge - required Maven 3.6.3 as minimal for core Maven Plugins

Re: New year - new challenge - required Maven 3.6.3 as minimal for core Maven Plugins

Re: New year - new challenge - required Maven 3.6.3 as minimal for core Maven Plugins

Re: New year - new challenge - required Maven 3.6.3 as minimal for core Maven Plugins

Re: New year - new challenge - required Maven 3.6.3 as minimal for core Maven Plugins

Re: New year - new challenge - required Maven 3.6.3 as minimal for core Maven Plugins

Re: New year - new challenge - required Maven 3.6.3 as minimal for core Maven Plugins

Re: New year - new challenge - required Maven 3.6.3 as minimal for core Maven Plugins

Re: New year - new challenge - required Maven 3.6.3 as minimal for core Maven Plugins

Re: New year - new challenge - required Maven 3.6.3 as minimal for core Maven Plugins

Re: New year - new challenge - required Maven 3.6.3 as minimal for core Maven Plugins

Re: New year - new challenge - required Maven 3.6.3 as minimal for core Maven Plugins

Re: New year - new challenge - required Maven 3.6.3 as minimal for core Maven Plugins

Re: New year - new challenge - required Maven 3.6.3 as minimal for core Maven Plugins

Re: New year - new challenge - required Maven 3.6.3 as minimal for core Maven Plugins

Re: New year - new challenge - required Maven 3.6.3 as minimal for core Maven Plugins

Re: New year - new challenge - required Maven 3.6.3 as minimal for core Maven Plugins

New year - new challenge - required Maven 3.6.3 as minimal for core Maven Plugins

30 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information