Re: [MNG-6169] Lifecycle/binding plugin version updates

[Michael Osipov]

Am 2017-05-11 um 22:30 schrieb Michael Osipov:

Who seconds MNG-6169 for 3.5.1? I have a fully working branch
(MNG-6169_2/not-updated-MJAR-MCOMPILER) passing all ITs on Windows 10
and FreeBSD 10.3-RELEASE.

Jenkins build is flaky with notorious file://target/null artifact not
found.

Some bindings haven't been updated because they cause several ITs to
fail (regressions). I will report them separately.


Folks,

this one is still lingering. Are we good to merge now after clearing out 
doubts?


Michael


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

Re: [MNG-6169] Lifecycle/binding plugin version updates

[Hervé BOUTEMY]

Le mardi 16 mai 2017, 22:20:35 CEST Stephen Connolly a écrit :
> On Tue 16 May 2017 at 22:40, Hervé BOUTEMY  wrote:
> > Le lundi 15 mai 2017, 07:20:08 CEST Stephen Connolly a écrit :
> > > On Sun 14 May 2017 at 08:51, Hervé BOUTEMY 
> > 
> > wrote:
> > > > thank you Robert: this is exactly the logic I was looking for, and
> > > > explanation
> > > > of changes over time to improve user experience through
> > 
> > reproducibility.
> > 
> > > > Now the question is: should we change default plugin versions in Maven
> > > > core?
> > > > Does it improve Maven or not?
> > > 
> > > I think we should.
> > > 
> > > If we don't update, we have a more complex ux for new users.
> > > 
> > > We already say to pin versions (iirc we even log warnings)
> > > 
> > > If people choose to ignore the warnings of a build being at risk of
> > > differential behaviour... they get what they configured: differential
> > 
> > builds
> > 
> > > > To me, changing default plugin versions lowers reproducibility.
> > > 
> > > Which is why we warn users... and the warning is there *to allow us to
> > > upgrade*
> > 
> > no, for these default plugin bindings, there is no warning, since the
> > default
> > binding defines a default version: that's the magic that happens with
> > minimal
> > poms.
> > 
> > The warning happens only when a new plugin is used without version.
> 
> Hmmm then that must have changed at some time because I am 99% certain that
> at some point in time there was a warning of plugins in the default
> lifecycle did not have a version specified...
> 
> But I recall at some point I lost the ability in the versions-m-p to detect
> that "normally" on the 3.x line (perhaps from 3.1.x onwards... I cannot
> recall)
as Robert explained, reproducibility was introduced in 2.0.9 (see MNG-3395, 
and the mecanism changed later to not be in super pom but in bindings): this 
removed the warning

just create a minimal pom with just groupId/artifactId/version and you'll see: 
no warning

> 
> I think we should restore those warnings then.
that's the whole complexity of ux: should we warn new users creating minimal 
poms? if not, when to warn them that minimal poms are just a fast track, that 
should rapidly be enhanced through a parent pom or an import?

Regards,

Hervé

> 
> > Then no, I don't see what "more complex ux" is there for new users.
> > This upgrade of default lifecycle plugin version looks to me just a big
> > misunderstanding on the expected benefit (or loss IMHO)
> > 
> > > > And it does not help users learn that they should define their own
> > 
> > plugin
> > 
> > > > versions instead of depending on the magic defaults that have to be
> > > > included
> > > > in Maven core to permit basic poms.
> > > 
> > > This sounds like an argument that we should add a CLI flag turn
> > > downgrade
> > > the current warnings back to warnings and escalate them up to errors by
> > > default.
> > > 
> > > > Then in general, if we have found a bug in a plugin with default
> > 
> > version
> > 
> > > > that
> > > > hits users using this default basic poms, we should update the
> > > > version:
> > > > good
> > > > default behaviour requirement surpasses reproducibility over Maven
> > 
> > version
> > 
> > > > expectation.
> > > > 
> > > > But if a plugin default version upgrade is just to have newer
> > > > defaults,
> > > > IMHO,
> > > > we sacrifice reproducibility and teaching to users that basic poms are
> > > > just a
> > > > quick start but should soon be extended to manage explicitely plugins
> > > > versions: is there a good reason to sacrifice this? I don't find any
> > 
> > good
> > 
> > > > reason: the sooner user discovers that he's using old plugins, the
> > 
> > better.
> > 
> > > > What we should give him are easy to discover and learn recipes to
> > 
> > manage
> > 
> > > > his
> > > > plugin versions: for example through a basic neutral parent pom with
> > > > newest
> > > > plugins, or a BOM pom. Maybe there are other ideas.
> > > > Yes, neutral parent pom or BOM pom are to me good ways to improve
> > > > Maven
> > > > for
> > > > users: not changing default plugin versions in Maven core.
> > > > 
> > > > Do I miss an aspect that should be taken into account?
> > > 
> > > I've been through this path with Jenkins. My considered opinion is it is
> > > better to just upgrade. We provide a path to lock down versions. We have
> > > warned users for ages.
> > 
> > no, definitely not on default plugin bindings: this is a magic that not
> > many
> > people understand, and I don't think upgrading default version will
> > improve
> > this understanding.
> 
> Well if the warning was lost then yes, we would first need to restore the
> warning... then we can move to start upgrading again.
> 
> > > An alternative could be to leverage the prerequisites value as a
> > > selector
> > > of the version defaults... though that would be re-enabling it for
> > > non-plugin packaging ;-)
> > 
> 

Re: [MNG-6169] Lifecycle/binding plugin version updates

[Stephen Connolly]

On Tue 16 May 2017 at 22:40, Hervé BOUTEMY  wrote:

> Le lundi 15 mai 2017, 07:20:08 CEST Stephen Connolly a écrit :
> > On Sun 14 May 2017 at 08:51, Hervé BOUTEMY 
> wrote:
> > > thank you Robert: this is exactly the logic I was looking for, and
> > > explanation
> > > of changes over time to improve user experience through
> reproducibility.
> > >
> > > Now the question is: should we change default plugin versions in Maven
> > > core?
> > > Does it improve Maven or not?
> >
> > I think we should.
> >
> > If we don't update, we have a more complex ux for new users.
> >
> > We already say to pin versions (iirc we even log warnings)
> >
> > If people choose to ignore the warnings of a build being at risk of
> > differential behaviour... they get what they configured: differential
> builds
> > > To me, changing default plugin versions lowers reproducibility.
> >
> > Which is why we warn users... and the warning is there *to allow us to
> > upgrade*
> >
> no, for these default plugin bindings, there is no warning, since the
> default
> binding defines a default version: that's the magic that happens with
> minimal
> poms.
>
> The warning happens only when a new plugin is used without version.
>

Hmmm then that must have changed at some time because I am 99% certain that
at some point in time there was a warning of plugins in the default
lifecycle did not have a version specified...

But I recall at some point I lost the ability in the versions-m-p to detect
that "normally" on the 3.x line (perhaps from 3.1.x onwards... I cannot
recall)

I think we should restore those warnings then.


> Then no, I don't see what "more complex ux" is there for new users.
> This upgrade of default lifecycle plugin version looks to me just a big
> misunderstanding on the expected benefit (or loss IMHO)
>
> > > And it does not help users learn that they should define their own
> plugin
> > > versions instead of depending on the magic defaults that have to be
> > > included
> > > in Maven core to permit basic poms.
> >
> > This sounds like an argument that we should add a CLI flag turn downgrade
> > the current warnings back to warnings and escalate them up to errors by
> > default.
> >
> > > Then in general, if we have found a bug in a plugin with default
> version
> > > that
> > > hits users using this default basic poms, we should update the version:
> > > good
> > > default behaviour requirement surpasses reproducibility over Maven
> version
> > > expectation.
> > >
> > > But if a plugin default version upgrade is just to have newer defaults,
> > > IMHO,
> > > we sacrifice reproducibility and teaching to users that basic poms are
> > > just a
> > > quick start but should soon be extended to manage explicitely plugins
> > > versions: is there a good reason to sacrifice this? I don't find any
> good
> > > reason: the sooner user discovers that he's using old plugins, the
> better.
> > >
> > > What we should give him are easy to discover and learn recipes to
> manage
> > > his
> > > plugin versions: for example through a basic neutral parent pom with
> > > newest
> > > plugins, or a BOM pom. Maybe there are other ideas.
> > > Yes, neutral parent pom or BOM pom are to me good ways to improve Maven
> > > for
> > > users: not changing default plugin versions in Maven core.
> > >
> > > Do I miss an aspect that should be taken into account?
> >
> > I've been through this path with Jenkins. My considered opinion is it is
> > better to just upgrade. We provide a path to lock down versions. We have
> > warned users for ages.
> no, definitely not on default plugin bindings: this is a magic that not
> many
> people understand, and I don't think upgrading default version will improve
> this understanding.
>

Well if the warning was lost then yes, we would first need to restore the
warning... then we can move to start upgrading again.


> >
> > An alternative could be to leverage the prerequisites value as a selector
> > of the version defaults... though that would be re-enabling it for
> > non-plugin packaging ;-)
> yes, this could be a solution: that would give a meaning to this
> prerequisites
> field in case of non-plugin packaging.
> But it would be more complex than just providing a parent pom, or an import
> pom


Yes... and we've just told everyone to stop using it... but I do see it as
a good solution.


>
> Regards,
>
> Hervé
>
> >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Hervé
> > >
> > > Le samedi 13 mai 2017, 23:11:05 CEST Robert Scholte a écrit :
> > > > >> If you are saying that depending on default version is a bad
> practice
> > >
> > > it
> > >
> > > > >> actually means to me that this should change in the new major.
> > > > >> Shouldn't it?
> > > > >
> > > > > this is a bad practice from a very long time, even in the Maven 2.x
> > > > > time: what
> > > > > should change more in next Maven version that would show it more,
> > >
> > > without
> > >
> > > > > breaking the magic that these 

Re: [MNG-6169] Lifecycle/binding plugin version updates

[Hervé BOUTEMY]

Le lundi 15 mai 2017, 07:20:08 CEST Stephen Connolly a écrit :
> On Sun 14 May 2017 at 08:51, Hervé BOUTEMY  wrote:
> > thank you Robert: this is exactly the logic I was looking for, and
> > explanation
> > of changes over time to improve user experience through reproducibility.
> > 
> > Now the question is: should we change default plugin versions in Maven
> > core?
> > Does it improve Maven or not?
> 
> I think we should.
> 
> If we don't update, we have a more complex ux for new users.
> 
> We already say to pin versions (iirc we even log warnings)
> 
> If people choose to ignore the warnings of a build being at risk of
> differential behaviour... they get what they configured: differential builds
> > To me, changing default plugin versions lowers reproducibility.
> 
> Which is why we warn users... and the warning is there *to allow us to
> upgrade*
> 
no, for these default plugin bindings, there is no warning, since the default 
binding defines a default version: that's the magic that happens with minimal 
poms.

The warning happens only when a new plugin is used without version.

Then no, I don't see what "more complex ux" is there for new users.
This upgrade of default lifecycle plugin version looks to me just a big 
misunderstanding on the expected benefit (or loss IMHO)

> > And it does not help users learn that they should define their own plugin
> > versions instead of depending on the magic defaults that have to be
> > included
> > in Maven core to permit basic poms.
> 
> This sounds like an argument that we should add a CLI flag turn downgrade
> the current warnings back to warnings and escalate them up to errors by
> default.
> 
> > Then in general, if we have found a bug in a plugin with default version
> > that
> > hits users using this default basic poms, we should update the version:
> > good
> > default behaviour requirement surpasses reproducibility over Maven version
> > expectation.
> > 
> > But if a plugin default version upgrade is just to have newer defaults,
> > IMHO,
> > we sacrifice reproducibility and teaching to users that basic poms are
> > just a
> > quick start but should soon be extended to manage explicitely plugins
> > versions: is there a good reason to sacrifice this? I don't find any good
> > reason: the sooner user discovers that he's using old plugins, the better.
> > 
> > What we should give him are easy to discover and learn recipes to manage
> > his
> > plugin versions: for example through a basic neutral parent pom with
> > newest
> > plugins, or a BOM pom. Maybe there are other ideas.
> > Yes, neutral parent pom or BOM pom are to me good ways to improve Maven
> > for
> > users: not changing default plugin versions in Maven core.
> > 
> > Do I miss an aspect that should be taken into account?
> 
> I've been through this path with Jenkins. My considered opinion is it is
> better to just upgrade. We provide a path to lock down versions. We have
> warned users for ages.
no, definitely not on default plugin bindings: this is a magic that not many 
people understand, and I don't think upgrading default version will improve 
this understanding.

> 
> An alternative could be to leverage the prerequisites value as a selector
> of the version defaults... though that would be re-enabling it for
> non-plugin packaging ;-)
yes, this could be a solution: that would give a meaning to this prerequisites 
field in case of non-plugin packaging.
But it would be more complex than just providing a parent pom, or an import 
pom

Regards,

Hervé

> 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Hervé
> > 
> > Le samedi 13 mai 2017, 23:11:05 CEST Robert Scholte a écrit :
> > > >> If you are saying that depending on default version is a bad practice
> > 
> > it
> > 
> > > >> actually means to me that this should change in the new major.
> > > >> Shouldn't it?
> > > > 
> > > > this is a bad practice from a very long time, even in the Maven 2.x
> > > > time: what
> > > > should change more in next Maven version that would show it more,
> > 
> > without
> > 
> > > > breaking the magic that these defaults are used to? A warning message
> > > > proposing to add pluginManagement corresponding to current Maven
> > 
> > version
> > 
> > > > used?
> > > > Or propose a parent pom to add?
> > > 
> > > IIRC up until Maven 2.0.8 there were no default plugin version, it was
> > > always selecting the latest when not specified. This was bad, because a
> > > new release of a plugin could suddenly make projects fail.
> > > Since Maven 2.0.9 there we started specifying default values to make
> > > everything more predictable.
> > > Right now we're also moving these information to the matching
> > > packaging-plugin, so the maven-jar-plugins specifies the
> > 
> > lifecycle-plugins
> > 
> > > and their versions.
> > > So in the end we should only specify the packaging-plugins in Maven
> > > core.
> > > Ideally these should not be part of maven-core, but that will it harder
> > 
> > to
> > 
> > > start 

Re: [MNG-6169] Lifecycle/binding plugin version updates

[Michael Osipov]

Am 2017-05-15 um 09:20 schrieb Stephen Connolly:

On Sun 14 May 2017 at 08:51, Hervé BOUTEMY  wrote:


thank you Robert: this is exactly the logic I was looking for, and
explanation
of changes over time to improve user experience through reproducibility.

Now the question is: should we change default plugin versions in Maven
core?
Does it improve Maven or not?



I think we should.

If we don't update, we have a more complex ux for new users.

We already say to pin versions (iirc we even log warnings)

If people choose to ignore the warnings of a build being at risk of
differential behaviour... they get what they configured: differential builds




To me, changing default plugin versions lowers reproducibility.



Which is why we warn users... and the warning is there *to allow us to
upgrade*



And it does not help users learn that they should define their own plugin
versions instead of depending on the magic defaults that have to be
included
in Maven core to permit basic poms.


We do not have two opposite opinions on this. What now, what to do with 
the branch?


Michael



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

Re: [MNG-6169] Lifecycle/binding plugin version updates

[Stephen Connolly]

On Sun 14 May 2017 at 08:51, Hervé BOUTEMY  wrote:

> thank you Robert: this is exactly the logic I was looking for, and
> explanation
> of changes over time to improve user experience through reproducibility.
>
> Now the question is: should we change default plugin versions in Maven
> core?
> Does it improve Maven or not?


I think we should.

If we don't update, we have a more complex ux for new users.

We already say to pin versions (iirc we even log warnings)

If people choose to ignore the warnings of a build being at risk of
differential behaviour... they get what they configured: differential builds


>
> To me, changing default plugin versions lowers reproducibility.


Which is why we warn users... and the warning is there *to allow us to
upgrade*


> And it does not help users learn that they should define their own plugin
> versions instead of depending on the magic defaults that have to be
> included
> in Maven core to permit basic poms.


This sounds like an argument that we should add a CLI flag turn downgrade
the current warnings back to warnings and escalate them up to errors by
default.


>
> Then in general, if we have found a bug in a plugin with default version
> that
> hits users using this default basic poms, we should update the version:
> good
> default behaviour requirement surpasses reproducibility over Maven version
> expectation.
>
> But if a plugin default version upgrade is just to have newer defaults,
> IMHO,
> we sacrifice reproducibility and teaching to users that basic poms are
> just a
> quick start but should soon be extended to manage explicitely plugins
> versions: is there a good reason to sacrifice this? I don't find any good
> reason: the sooner user discovers that he's using old plugins, the better.
>
> What we should give him are easy to discover and learn recipes to manage
> his
> plugin versions: for example through a basic neutral parent pom with newest
> plugins, or a BOM pom. Maybe there are other ideas.
> Yes, neutral parent pom or BOM pom are to me good ways to improve Maven for
> users: not changing default plugin versions in Maven core.
>
> Do I miss an aspect that should be taken into account?


I've been through this path with Jenkins. My considered opinion is it is
better to just upgrade. We provide a path to lock down versions. We have
warned users for ages.

An alternative could be to leverage the prerequisites value as a selector
of the version defaults... though that would be re-enabling it for
non-plugin packaging ;-)


>
> Regards,
>
> Hervé
>
> Le samedi 13 mai 2017, 23:11:05 CEST Robert Scholte a écrit :
> > >> If you are saying that depending on default version is a bad practice
> it
> > >> actually means to me that this should change in the new major.
> > >> Shouldn't it?
> > >
> > > this is a bad practice from a very long time, even in the Maven 2.x
> > > time: what
> > > should change more in next Maven version that would show it more,
> without
> > > breaking the magic that these defaults are used to? A warning message
> > > proposing to add pluginManagement corresponding to current Maven
> version
> > > used?
> > > Or propose a parent pom to add?
> >
> > IIRC up until Maven 2.0.8 there were no default plugin version, it was
> > always selecting the latest when not specified. This was bad, because a
> > new release of a plugin could suddenly make projects fail.
> > Since Maven 2.0.9 there we started specifying default values to make
> > everything more predictable.
> > Right now we're also moving these information to the matching
> > packaging-plugin, so the maven-jar-plugins specifies the
> lifecycle-plugins
> > and their versions.
> > So in the end we should only specify the packaging-plugins in Maven core.
> > Ideally these should not be part of maven-core, but that will it harder
> to
> > start using Maven. For that reason it will be likely that some plugins
> > will still need to be specified with the Maven distribution.
> >
> > Robert
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
>
> --
Sent from my phone

Re: [MNG-6169] Lifecycle/binding plugin version updates

[Michael Osipov]

Am 2017-05-14 um 09:33 schrieb Hervé BOUTEMY:

I don't understand what changed in Maven 3.1.0-alpha-1 that changed the
behaviour: did you find which issue was fixed?


Unfortunately not. Issue titles weren't helpful, commit messages also. I 
assume this is an Aether update.



Adding a pointer to that issue as comment (and not only in git commit message)
would be useful before merging so that this change is understood when reading
the code


Did update JIRA issues. I will go ahead and merge the commit.


Regards,

Hervé

Le dimanche 14 mai 2017, 00:25:10 CEST Michael Osipov a écrit :

I need to have a closer look at it through the Maven versions.


Tackled it. Any objections to merge
44ae63380768e53fab11ffb73131f201b268ed81 on Core ITs?

Michael



-
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






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

Re: [MNG-6169] Lifecycle/binding plugin version updates

[Hervé BOUTEMY]

thank you Robert: this is exactly the logic I was looking for, and explanation 
of changes over time to improve user experience through reproducibility.

Now the question is: should we change default plugin versions in Maven core?
Does it improve Maven or not?

To me, changing default plugin versions lowers reproducibility.
And it does not help users learn that they should define their own plugin 
versions instead of depending on the magic defaults that have to be included 
in Maven core to permit basic poms.

Then in general, if we have found a bug in a plugin with default version that 
hits users using this default basic poms, we should update the version: good 
default behaviour requirement surpasses reproducibility over Maven version 
expectation.

But if a plugin default version upgrade is just to have newer defaults, IMHO, 
we sacrifice reproducibility and teaching to users that basic poms are just a 
quick start but should soon be extended to manage explicitely plugins 
versions: is there a good reason to sacrifice this? I don't find any good 
reason: the sooner user discovers that he's using old plugins, the better. 

What we should give him are easy to discover and learn recipes to manage his 
plugin versions: for example through a basic neutral parent pom with newest 
plugins, or a BOM pom. Maybe there are other ideas.
Yes, neutral parent pom or BOM pom are to me good ways to improve Maven for 
users: not changing default plugin versions in Maven core.

Do I miss an aspect that should be taken into account?

Regards,

Hervé

Le samedi 13 mai 2017, 23:11:05 CEST Robert Scholte a écrit :
> >> If you are saying that depending on default version is a bad practice it
> >> actually means to me that this should change in the new major.
> >> Shouldn't it?
> > 
> > this is a bad practice from a very long time, even in the Maven 2.x
> > time: what
> > should change more in next Maven version that would show it more, without
> > breaking the magic that these defaults are used to? A warning message
> > proposing to add pluginManagement corresponding to current Maven version
> > used?
> > Or propose a parent pom to add?
> 
> IIRC up until Maven 2.0.8 there were no default plugin version, it was
> always selecting the latest when not specified. This was bad, because a
> new release of a plugin could suddenly make projects fail.
> Since Maven 2.0.9 there we started specifying default values to make
> everything more predictable.
> Right now we're also moving these information to the matching
> packaging-plugin, so the maven-jar-plugins specifies the lifecycle-plugins
> and their versions.
> So in the end we should only specify the packaging-plugins in Maven core.
> Ideally these should not be part of maven-core, but that will it harder to
> start using Maven. For that reason it will be likely that some plugins
> will still need to be specified with the Maven distribution.
> 
> Robert


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

Re: [MNG-6169] Lifecycle/binding plugin version updates

[Hervé BOUTEMY]

I don't understand what changed in Maven 3.1.0-alpha-1 that changed the 
behaviour: did you find which issue was fixed?

Adding a pointer to that issue as comment (and not only in git commit message) 
would be useful before merging so that this change is understood when reading 
the code

thanks for digging into this

Regards,

Hervé

Le dimanche 14 mai 2017, 00:25:10 CEST Michael Osipov a écrit :
> > I need to have a closer look at it through the Maven versions.
> 
> Tackled it. Any objections to merge
> 44ae63380768e53fab11ffb73131f201b268ed81 on Core ITs?
> 
> Michael
> 
> 
> 
> -
> 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: [MNG-6169] Lifecycle/binding plugin version updates

[Michael Osipov]

Am 2017-05-13 um 23:39 schrieb Michael Osipov:

Am 2017-05-13 um 22:38 schrieb Hervé BOUTEMY:

Le samedi 13 mai 2017, 00:58:45 CEST Michael Osipov a écrit :

Am 2017-05-13 um 00:30 schrieb Hervé BOUTEMY:

Le vendredi 12 mai 2017, 13:50:37 CEST Michael Osipov a écrit :

Am 2017-05-12 um 08:25 schrieb Hervé BOUTEMY:

Jenkins build is not flaky: it is strict on dependency resolution
from
cache, which is an intent, not a bug


This pretty much explains why a lot of ITs fail here at work with a
empty repo. I will to work this through.


beware to not make the ITs fail with previous Maven versions


All I did is this:
https://github.com/apache/maven-integration-testing/commit/5c01864e44c7c96ca

c95545e8568acd044b6d7dc

ok, just tested with Maven 3.0.5: this does not add more failures
(notice that
existing failures show we already did some mistakes in the past
regarding some
updated ITs...)


I reran Maven 3.5.0, 3.3.9 on Core ITs master on two operating systems.
Both pass. Then I ran 3.0.5, it fails just like you noticed. Except one
failure, this is due to the embedded mode. Several ITs are not
wellsuited for embedded mode (single VM).

The single in 3.0.5 is in MavenITmng0947OptionalDependencyTest. You
might remember that I have done recently some improvements to "optional"
in Core as well es to Core IT Support plugins: MNG-6229. It now payed
off. The optional flag was missing on the dep tree output, so the test
was impcomplete. Now, an issue has been detected in 3.0.5 or the IT itself:

Actual:

[INFO] [MAVEN-CORE-IT-LOG] Dumping artifact list:
D:\Entwicklung\Projekte\maven-integration-testing\core-it-suite\target\test-classes\mng-0947\target\compile.txt

[INFO] [MAVEN-CORE-IT-LOG]   org.apache.maven.its.mng0947:e:jar:0.1
(optional)
[INFO] [MAVEN-CORE-IT-LOG]   org.apache.maven.its.mng0947:d:jar:0.1
[INFO]
[INFO] --- maven-it-plugin-dependency-resolution:2.1-SNAPSHOT:runtime
(test) @ consumer ---
[INFO] [MAVEN-CORE-IT-LOG] Dumping artifact list:
D:\Entwicklung\Projekte\maven-integration-testing\core-it-suite\target\test-classes\mng-0947\target\runtime.txt

[INFO] [MAVEN-CORE-IT-LOG]   org.apache.maven.its.mng0947:c:jar:0.1
[INFO] [MAVEN-CORE-IT-LOG]   org.apache.maven.its.mng0947:e:jar:0.1
(optional)
[INFO] [MAVEN-CORE-IT-LOG]   org.apache.maven.its.mng0947:d:jar:0.1
[INFO]
[INFO] --- maven-it-plugin-dependency-resolution:2.1-SNAPSHOT:test
(test) @ consumer ---
[INFO] [MAVEN-CORE-IT-LOG] Dumping artifact list:
D:\Entwicklung\Projekte\maven-integration-testing\core-it-suite\target\test-classes\mng-0947\target\test.txt

[INFO] [MAVEN-CORE-IT-LOG]   org.apache.maven.its.mng0947:c:jar:0.1
[INFO] [MAVEN-CORE-IT-LOG]   org.apache.maven.its.mng0947:e:jar:0.1
(optional)
[INFO] [MAVEN-CORE-IT-LOG]   org.apache.maven.its.mng0947:d:jar:0.1


Expected:

List compile = verifier.loadLines(
"target/compile.txt", "UTF-8" );
assertTrue( compile.toString(), compile.contains(
"org.apache.maven.its.mng0947:d:jar:0.1 (optional)" ) );
assertTrue( compile.toString(), compile.contains(
"org.apache.maven.its.mng0947:e:jar:0.1 (optional)" ) );
assertEquals( 2, compile.size() );

List runtime = verifier.loadLines(
"target/runtime.txt", "UTF-8" );
assertTrue( runtime.toString(), runtime.contains(
"org.apache.maven.its.mng0947:c:jar:0.1" ) );
assertTrue( runtime.toString(), runtime.contains(
"org.apache.maven.its.mng0947:d:jar:0.1 (optional)" ) );
assertTrue( runtime.toString(), runtime.contains(
"org.apache.maven.its.mng0947:e:jar:0.1 (optional)" ) );
assertEquals( 3, runtime.size() );

List test = verifier.loadLines( "target/test.txt",
"UTF-8" );
assertTrue( test.toString(), test.contains(
"org.apache.maven.its.mng0947:c:jar:0.1" ) );
assertTrue( test.toString(), test.contains(
"org.apache.maven.its.mng0947:d:jar:0.1 (optional)" ) );
assertTrue( test.toString(), test.contains(
"org.apache.maven.its.mng0947:e:jar:0.1 (optional)" ) );
assertEquals( 3, test.size() );


I need to have a closer look at it through the Maven versions.


Tackled it. Any objections to merge 
44ae63380768e53fab11ffb73131f201b268ed81 on Core ITs?


Michael



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

Re: [MNG-6169] Lifecycle/binding plugin version updates

[Michael Osipov]

Am 2017-05-13 um 22:38 schrieb Hervé BOUTEMY:

Le samedi 13 mai 2017, 00:58:45 CEST Michael Osipov a écrit :

Am 2017-05-13 um 00:30 schrieb Hervé BOUTEMY:

Le vendredi 12 mai 2017, 13:50:37 CEST Michael Osipov a écrit :

Am 2017-05-12 um 08:25 schrieb Hervé BOUTEMY:

Jenkins build is not flaky: it is strict on dependency resolution from
cache, which is an intent, not a bug


This pretty much explains why a lot of ITs fail here at work with a
empty repo. I will to work this through.


beware to not make the ITs fail with previous Maven versions


All I did is this:
https://github.com/apache/maven-integration-testing/commit/5c01864e44c7c96ca
c95545e8568acd044b6d7dc

ok, just tested with Maven 3.0.5: this does not add more failures (notice that
existing failures show we already did some mistakes in the past regarding some
updated ITs...)


I reran Maven 3.5.0, 3.3.9 on Core ITs master on two operating systems. 
Both pass. Then I ran 3.0.5, it fails just like you noticed. Except one 
failure, this is due to the embedded mode. Several ITs are not 
wellsuited for embedded mode (single VM).


The single in 3.0.5 is in MavenITmng0947OptionalDependencyTest. You 
might remember that I have done recently some improvements to "optional" 
in Core as well es to Core IT Support plugins: MNG-6229. It now payed 
off. The optional flag was missing on the dep tree output, so the test 
was impcomplete. Now, an issue has been detected in 3.0.5 or the IT itself:


Actual:

[INFO] [MAVEN-CORE-IT-LOG] Dumping artifact list: 
D:\Entwicklung\Projekte\maven-integration-testing\core-it-suite\target\test-classes\mng-0947\target\compile.txt
[INFO] [MAVEN-CORE-IT-LOG]   org.apache.maven.its.mng0947:e:jar:0.1 (optional)
[INFO] [MAVEN-CORE-IT-LOG]   org.apache.maven.its.mng0947:d:jar:0.1
[INFO]
[INFO] --- maven-it-plugin-dependency-resolution:2.1-SNAPSHOT:runtime (test) @ 
consumer ---
[INFO] [MAVEN-CORE-IT-LOG] Dumping artifact list: 
D:\Entwicklung\Projekte\maven-integration-testing\core-it-suite\target\test-classes\mng-0947\target\runtime.txt
[INFO] [MAVEN-CORE-IT-LOG]   org.apache.maven.its.mng0947:c:jar:0.1
[INFO] [MAVEN-CORE-IT-LOG]   org.apache.maven.its.mng0947:e:jar:0.1 (optional)
[INFO] [MAVEN-CORE-IT-LOG]   org.apache.maven.its.mng0947:d:jar:0.1
[INFO]
[INFO] --- maven-it-plugin-dependency-resolution:2.1-SNAPSHOT:test (test) @ 
consumer ---
[INFO] [MAVEN-CORE-IT-LOG] Dumping artifact list: 
D:\Entwicklung\Projekte\maven-integration-testing\core-it-suite\target\test-classes\mng-0947\target\test.txt
[INFO] [MAVEN-CORE-IT-LOG]   org.apache.maven.its.mng0947:c:jar:0.1
[INFO] [MAVEN-CORE-IT-LOG]   org.apache.maven.its.mng0947:e:jar:0.1 (optional)
[INFO] [MAVEN-CORE-IT-LOG]   org.apache.maven.its.mng0947:d:jar:0.1


Expected:

List compile = verifier.loadLines( "target/compile.txt", 
"UTF-8" );
assertTrue( compile.toString(), compile.contains( 
"org.apache.maven.its.mng0947:d:jar:0.1 (optional)" ) );
assertTrue( compile.toString(), compile.contains( 
"org.apache.maven.its.mng0947:e:jar:0.1 (optional)" ) );
assertEquals( 2, compile.size() );

List runtime = verifier.loadLines( "target/runtime.txt", 
"UTF-8" );
assertTrue( runtime.toString(), runtime.contains( 
"org.apache.maven.its.mng0947:c:jar:0.1" ) );
assertTrue( runtime.toString(), runtime.contains( 
"org.apache.maven.its.mng0947:d:jar:0.1 (optional)" ) );
assertTrue( runtime.toString(), runtime.contains( 
"org.apache.maven.its.mng0947:e:jar:0.1 (optional)" ) );
assertEquals( 3, runtime.size() );

List test = verifier.loadLines( "target/test.txt", "UTF-8" );
assertTrue( test.toString(), test.contains( 
"org.apache.maven.its.mng0947:c:jar:0.1" ) );
assertTrue( test.toString(), test.contains( 
"org.apache.maven.its.mng0947:d:jar:0.1 (optional)" ) );
assertTrue( test.toString(), test.contains( 
"org.apache.maven.its.mng0947:e:jar:0.1 (optional)" ) );
assertEquals( 3, test.size() );


I need to have a closer look at it through the Maven versions.


that's why I don't like changing default plugins versions:

1. depending on default plugins versions is a bad practice: IMHO, having
old plugins helps people know that they should not rely on it


This basically means that people would need to provide versions
explicitly in the POMs starting with Maven 4.


??? Why are you talking about Maven 4?


If you are saying that depending on default version is a bad practice it
actually means to me that this should change in the new major. Shouldn't it?

this is a bad practice from a very long time, even in the Maven 2.x time: what
should change more in next Maven version that would show it more, without
breaking the magic that these defaults are used to? A warning message
proposing to add pluginManagement corresponding to current Maven version used?
Or propose a parent pom to add?


I think a warning for < 4.0 to fix the version would be best and have it 
fail in 4.0 if the version of 

Re: [MNG-6169] Lifecycle/binding plugin version updates

[Robert Scholte]

On Sat, 13 May 2017 22:38:55 +0200, Hervé BOUTEMY   
wrote:



Le samedi 13 mai 2017, 00:58:45 CEST Michael Osipov a écrit :

Am 2017-05-13 um 00:30 schrieb Hervé BOUTEMY:
> Le vendredi 12 mai 2017, 13:50:37 CEST Michael Osipov a écrit :
>> Am 2017-05-12 um 08:25 schrieb Hervé BOUTEMY:
>>> Jenkins build is not flaky: it is strict on dependency resolution  
from

>>> cache, which is an intent, not a bug
>>
>> This pretty much explains why a lot of ITs fail here at work with a
>> empty repo. I will to work this through.
>
> beware to not make the ITs fail with previous Maven versions

All I did is this:
https://github.com/apache/maven-integration-testing/commit/5c01864e44c7c96ca
c95545e8568acd044b6d7dc
ok, just tested with Maven 3.0.5: this does not add more failures  
(notice that
existing failures show we already did some mistakes in the past  
regarding some

updated ITs...)


>>> that's why I don't like changing default plugins versions:
>>>
>>> 1. depending on default plugins versions is a bad practice: IMHO,  
having

>>> old plugins helps people know that they should not rely on it
>>
>> This basically means that people would need to provide versions
>> explicitly in the POMs starting with Maven 4.
>
> ??? Why are you talking about Maven 4?

If you are saying that depending on default version is a bad practice it
actually means to me that this should change in the new major.  
Shouldn't it?
this is a bad practice from a very long time, even in the Maven 2.x  
time: what

should change more in next Maven version that would show it more, without
breaking the magic that these defaults are used to? A warning message
proposing to add pluginManagement corresponding to current Maven version  
used?

Or propose a parent pom to add?



IIRC up until Maven 2.0.8 there were no default plugin version, it was  
always selecting the latest when not specified. This was bad, because a  
new release of a plugin could suddenly make projects fail.
Since Maven 2.0.9 there we started specifying default values to make  
everything more predictable.
Right now we're also moving these information to the matching  
packaging-plugin, so the maven-jar-plugins specifies the lifecycle-plugins  
and their versions.
So in the end we should only specify the packaging-plugins in Maven core.  
Ideally these should not be part of maven-core, but that will it harder to  
start using Maven. For that reason it will be likely that some plugins  
will still need to be specified with the Maven distribution.


Robert


>> Looks like a lot of
>> hassle, doesn't it? I'd better see this in the Super POM rather  
embedded

>> in a JAR.
>
> ??? "embedded in a JAR"? what did I say that lead to something like  
this?


I assumed that your idea is rather nothing this up to the Super POM:
./maven-model-builder/src/main/resources/org/apache/maven/model/pom-4.0.0.xm
the super pom is in Maven: anything in Maven won't change that default  
will be

dependent on Maven version used, which is not good for reproducibility

[...]


>> Do you know completely reject the issue to be merged?
>
> I'd like to have us understand each other:
> - what do you expect to win?
> - what do we loose?
> I know doing this update is easy to do and corresponds to a lot of  
good

> intentions on giving latest of everything for lazy users: but the
> consequences are IMHO not so positive and are for the moment
> misunderstood/ignored My position is not definitive, the discussion on
> evaluating with multiple many eyes if this change is really good or  
not,
> and goot at what, will make my final opinion on this: but sure, for  
the

> moment, I'm not convinced this update goes in a good direction

It wasn't easy. I invested quite some time to make all ITs pass.
yes, changing the versions in Maven is easy, but updating ITs and  
checking
that everything works better is harder: once again, I don't see the  
value to
updating these default values, since people should define their own  
plugins
versions in their pom. But I see value of having the same plugins  
versions in

every Maven 3.x release, to have some de-facto reproducibility.


Some
plugins weren't even updated because they cause regressions in ITs which
I still haven't investigated yet. Some even cause zlib failures in
native code (known JVM issue due to bad code).

uh!

Regards,

Hervé



>> Michael
>>
>>> Le jeudi 11 mai 2017, 22:30:43 CEST Michael Osipov a écrit :
 Who seconds MNG-6169 for 3.5.1? I have a fully working branch
 (MNG-6169_2/not-updated-MJAR-MCOMPILER) passing all ITs on Windows  
10

 and FreeBSD 10.3-RELEASE.

 Jenkins build is flaky with notorious file://target/null artifact  
not

 found.

 Some bindings haven't been updated because they cause several ITs  
to

 fail (regressions). I will report them separately.


 Michael

  
-

 To unsubscribe, e-mail: 

Re: [MNG-6169] Lifecycle/binding plugin version updates

[Hervé BOUTEMY]

Le samedi 13 mai 2017, 00:58:45 CEST Michael Osipov a écrit :
> Am 2017-05-13 um 00:30 schrieb Hervé BOUTEMY:
> > Le vendredi 12 mai 2017, 13:50:37 CEST Michael Osipov a écrit :
> >> Am 2017-05-12 um 08:25 schrieb Hervé BOUTEMY:
> >>> Jenkins build is not flaky: it is strict on dependency resolution from
> >>> cache, which is an intent, not a bug
> >> 
> >> This pretty much explains why a lot of ITs fail here at work with a
> >> empty repo. I will to work this through.
> > 
> > beware to not make the ITs fail with previous Maven versions
> 
> All I did is this:
> https://github.com/apache/maven-integration-testing/commit/5c01864e44c7c96ca
> c95545e8568acd044b6d7dc
ok, just tested with Maven 3.0.5: this does not add more failures (notice that 
existing failures show we already did some mistakes in the past regarding some 
updated ITs...)

> >>> that's why I don't like changing default plugins versions:
> >>> 
> >>> 1. depending on default plugins versions is a bad practice: IMHO, having
> >>> old plugins helps people know that they should not rely on it
> >> 
> >> This basically means that people would need to provide versions
> >> explicitly in the POMs starting with Maven 4.
> > 
> > ??? Why are you talking about Maven 4?
> 
> If you are saying that depending on default version is a bad practice it
> actually means to me that this should change in the new major. Shouldn't it?
this is a bad practice from a very long time, even in the Maven 2.x time: what 
should change more in next Maven version that would show it more, without 
breaking the magic that these defaults are used to? A warning message 
proposing to add pluginManagement corresponding to current Maven version used? 
Or propose a parent pom to add?

> >> Looks like a lot of
> >> hassle, doesn't it? I'd better see this in the Super POM rather embedded
> >> in a JAR.
> > 
> > ??? "embedded in a JAR"? what did I say that lead to something like this?
> 
> I assumed that your idea is rather nothing this up to the Super POM:
> ./maven-model-builder/src/main/resources/org/apache/maven/model/pom-4.0.0.xm
the super pom is in Maven: anything in Maven won't change that default will be 
dependent on Maven version used, which is not good for reproducibility

[...]

> >> Do you know completely reject the issue to be merged?
> > 
> > I'd like to have us understand each other:
> > - what do you expect to win?
> > - what do we loose?
> > I know doing this update is easy to do and corresponds to a lot of good
> > intentions on giving latest of everything for lazy users: but the
> > consequences are IMHO not so positive and are for the moment
> > misunderstood/ignored My position is not definitive, the discussion on
> > evaluating with multiple many eyes if this change is really good or not,
> > and goot at what, will make my final opinion on this: but sure, for the
> > moment, I'm not convinced this update goes in a good direction
> 
> It wasn't easy. I invested quite some time to make all ITs pass.
yes, changing the versions in Maven is easy, but updating ITs and checking 
that everything works better is harder: once again, I don't see the value to 
updating these default values, since people should define their own plugins 
versions in their pom. But I see value of having the same plugins versions in 
every Maven 3.x release, to have some de-facto reproducibility.

> Some
> plugins weren't even updated because they cause regressions in ITs which
> I still haven't investigated yet. Some even cause zlib failures in
> native code (known JVM issue due to bad code).
uh!

Regards,

Hervé

> 
> >> Michael
> >> 
> >>> Le jeudi 11 mai 2017, 22:30:43 CEST Michael Osipov a écrit :
>  Who seconds MNG-6169 for 3.5.1? I have a fully working branch
>  (MNG-6169_2/not-updated-MJAR-MCOMPILER) passing all ITs on Windows 10
>  and FreeBSD 10.3-RELEASE.
>  
>  Jenkins build is flaky with notorious file://target/null artifact not
>  found.
>  
>  Some bindings haven't been updated because they cause several ITs to
>  fail (regressions). I will report them separately.
>  
>  
>  Michael
>  
>  -
>  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
> >> 
> >> -
> >> 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: [MNG-6169] Lifecycle/binding plugin version updates

[Martin Gainty]

Good Morning Michael


any timeline on pom.xml creation for tomcat source distros?

i d/l 8.5.4

https://archive.apache.org/dist/tomcat/tomcat-8/v8.5.4/src/

and i see only 1 pom.xml for jdbc-pool


but I see 3 build.xml

find . name build.xml

./modules/jdbc-pool/build.xml
./res/deployer/build.xml
./webapps/ROOT/build.xml


for each attempt to track down a TC problem i am forced to create pom.xml from 
scratch

so I can build, package and deploy the war to locate the problem


I of course will help you *behind the scenes* for any assistance you may require


thanks,

Martin
__

"why do you help the british?..in 1812 they burned your capitol"..The Great 
Escape



From: Michael Osipov <micha...@apache.org>
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 6:58 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: [MNG-6169] Lifecycle/binding plugin version updates

Am 2017-05-13 um 00:30 schrieb Hervé BOUTEMY:
> Le vendredi 12 mai 2017, 13:50:37 CEST Michael Osipov a écrit :
>> Am 2017-05-12 um 08:25 schrieb Hervé BOUTEMY:
>>> Jenkins build is not flaky: it is strict on dependency resolution from
>>> cache, which is an intent, not a bug
>>
>> This pretty much explains why a lot of ITs fail here at work with a
>> empty repo. I will to work this through.
> beware to not make the ITs fail with previous Maven versions

All I did is this:
https://github.com/apache/maven-integration-testing/commit/5c01864e44c7c96cac95545e8568acd044b6d7dc
[https://avatars3.githubusercontent.com/u/573017?v=3=200]<https://github.com/apache/maven-integration-testing/commit/5c01864e44c7c96cac95545e8568acd044b6d7dc>

[MNG-6169] Lifecycle/binding plugin version updates · 
apache/maven-integration-testing@5c01864<https://github.com/apache/maven-integration-testing/commit/5c01864e44c7c96cac95545e8568acd044b6d7dc>
github.com
MNG-5895 and MNG-6090 with ArtifactResolutionException. Add dependencies Maven 
Resources Plugin 3.0.2 and Maven Surefire 2.2.0 to bootstrap's group 7.





>>
>>> that's why I don't like changing default plugins versions:
>>>
>>> 1. depending on default plugins versions is a bad practice: IMHO, having
>>> old plugins helps people know that they should not rely on it
>>
>> This basically means that people would need to provide versions
>> explicitly in the POMs starting with Maven 4.
> ??? Why are you talking about Maven 4?

If you are saying that depending on default version is a bad practice it
actually means to me that this should change in the new major. Shouldn't it?

>> Looks like a lot of
>> hassle, doesn't it? I'd better see this in the Super POM rather embedded
>> in a JAR.
> ??? "embedded in a JAR"? what did I say that lead to something like this?

I assumed that your idea is rather nothing this up to the Super POM:
./maven-model-builder/src/main/resources/org/apache/maven/model/pom-4.0.0.xml

>>> 2. people who do a "dependency:go-offline" with a previous Maven version
>>> but run offline with updated Maven version will see their build fail and
>>> report about dependency:go-offline not being reliable, which is
>>> technically not true, but is sensitive to Maven version (something that
>>> is hard to explain)
>>
>> Pretty good point. We should actually ad this information to the goal
>> doc. This will also fail if your change your POM.
>>
>>> On the first objection, it's a question of choice on how to promote the
>>> good practice about explicitely choosing your plugins versions
>>>
>>> On the second objection, I had an idea of Maven core improvement that
>>> would fix the go-offline dependency on Maven version used: what if Maven
>>> core distribution did contain a (read-only) local repo with default
>>> plugins already resolved?
>>>
>>> With such a feature, go-offline would not be dependant on Maven version
>>> used (starting from the Maven version that has this pre-built repo). And
>>> user would better see the default dependencies by looking at this
>>> pre-builot repo = something I'm sure they will do (but they don't have a
>>> look at lifecycle definition files, which are opaque for them)
>>>
>>> I didn't have time to work on implementing this idea, I suppose this would
>>> just require a new default repository with file://${maven.home}/default-
>>> plugins/ url, and to fill this repo at build time with appropriate
>>> go-offline
>> Sounds like a good idea but would produce a lot of bloat, wouldn't it?
> what do you call "bloat"? and what do you call "a lot"? Is it better to
> download plugin artifacts from network instea

Re: [MNG-6169] Lifecycle/binding plugin version updates

[Michael Osipov]

Am 2017-05-13 um 00:30 schrieb Hervé BOUTEMY:

Le vendredi 12 mai 2017, 13:50:37 CEST Michael Osipov a écrit :

Am 2017-05-12 um 08:25 schrieb Hervé BOUTEMY:

Jenkins build is not flaky: it is strict on dependency resolution from
cache, which is an intent, not a bug


This pretty much explains why a lot of ITs fail here at work with a
empty repo. I will to work this through.

beware to not make the ITs fail with previous Maven versions


All I did is this: 
https://github.com/apache/maven-integration-testing/commit/5c01864e44c7c96cac95545e8568acd044b6d7dc






that's why I don't like changing default plugins versions:

1. depending on default plugins versions is a bad practice: IMHO, having
old plugins helps people know that they should not rely on it


This basically means that people would need to provide versions
explicitly in the POMs starting with Maven 4.

??? Why are you talking about Maven 4?


If you are saying that depending on default version is a bad practice it 
actually means to me that this should change in the new major. Shouldn't it?



Looks like a lot of
hassle, doesn't it? I'd better see this in the Super POM rather embedded
in a JAR.

??? "embedded in a JAR"? what did I say that lead to something like this?


I assumed that your idea is rather nothing this up to the Super POM: 
./maven-model-builder/src/main/resources/org/apache/maven/model/pom-4.0.0.xml



2. people who do a "dependency:go-offline" with a previous Maven version
but run offline with updated Maven version will see their build fail and
report about dependency:go-offline not being reliable, which is
technically not true, but is sensitive to Maven version (something that
is hard to explain)


Pretty good point. We should actually ad this information to the goal
doc. This will also fail if your change your POM.


On the first objection, it's a question of choice on how to promote the
good practice about explicitely choosing your plugins versions

On the second objection, I had an idea of Maven core improvement that
would fix the go-offline dependency on Maven version used: what if Maven
core distribution did contain a (read-only) local repo with default
plugins already resolved?

With such a feature, go-offline would not be dependant on Maven version
used (starting from the Maven version that has this pre-built repo). And
user would better see the default dependencies by looking at this
pre-builot repo = something I'm sure they will do (but they don't have a
look at lifecycle definition files, which are opaque for them)

I didn't have time to work on implementing this idea, I suppose this would
just require a new default repository with file://${maven.home}/default-
plugins/ url, and to fill this repo at build time with appropriate
go-offline

Sounds like a good idea but would produce a lot of bloat, wouldn't it?

what do you call "bloat"? and what do you call "a lot"? Is it better to
download plugin artifacts from network instead?


All plugin dependency trees. This should be configurable in settings.xml
and MDEP should provide a goal to populate such a repo.
I am afraid that no one will pick this up anytime soon.

Do you know completely reject the issue to be merged?

I'd like to have us understand each other:
- what do you expect to win?
- what do we loose?
I know doing this update is easy to do and corresponds to a lot of good
intentions on giving latest of everything for lazy users: but the consequences
are IMHO not so positive and are for the moment misunderstood/ignored
My position is not definitive, the discussion on evaluating with multiple many
eyes if this change is really good or not, and goot at what, will make my final
opinion on this: but sure, for the moment, I'm not convinced this update goes
in a good direction


It wasn't easy. I invested quite some time to make all ITs pass. Some 
plugins weren't even updated because they cause regressions in ITs which 
I still haven't investigated yet. Some even cause zlib failures in 
native code (known JVM issue due to bad code).



Michael


Le jeudi 11 mai 2017, 22:30:43 CEST Michael Osipov a écrit :

Who seconds MNG-6169 for 3.5.1? I have a fully working branch
(MNG-6169_2/not-updated-MJAR-MCOMPILER) passing all ITs on Windows 10
and FreeBSD 10.3-RELEASE.

Jenkins build is flaky with notorious file://target/null artifact not
found.

Some bindings haven't been updated because they cause several ITs to
fail (regressions). I will report them separately.


Michael

-
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


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

Re: [MNG-6169] Lifecycle/binding plugin version updates

[Hervé BOUTEMY]

Le vendredi 12 mai 2017, 13:50:37 CEST Michael Osipov a écrit :
> Am 2017-05-12 um 08:25 schrieb Hervé BOUTEMY:
> > Jenkins build is not flaky: it is strict on dependency resolution from
> > cache, which is an intent, not a bug
> 
> This pretty much explains why a lot of ITs fail here at work with a
> empty repo. I will to work this through.
beware to not make the ITs fail with previous Maven versions

> 
> > that's why I don't like changing default plugins versions:
> > 
> > 1. depending on default plugins versions is a bad practice: IMHO, having
> > old plugins helps people know that they should not rely on it
> 
> This basically means that people would need to provide versions
> explicitly in the POMs starting with Maven 4.
??? Why are you talking about Maven 4?

> Looks like a lot of
> hassle, doesn't it? I'd better see this in the Super POM rather embedded
> in a JAR.
??? "embedded in a JAR"? what did I say that lead to something like this?

> 
> > 2. people who do a "dependency:go-offline" with a previous Maven version
> > but run offline with updated Maven version will see their build fail and
> > report about dependency:go-offline not being reliable, which is
> > technically not true, but is sensitive to Maven version (something that
> > is hard to explain)
> 
> Pretty good point. We should actually ad this information to the goal
> doc. This will also fail if your change your POM.
> 
> > On the first objection, it's a question of choice on how to promote the
> > good practice about explicitely choosing your plugins versions
> > 
> > On the second objection, I had an idea of Maven core improvement that
> > would fix the go-offline dependency on Maven version used: what if Maven
> > core distribution did contain a (read-only) local repo with default
> > plugins already resolved?
> > 
> > With such a feature, go-offline would not be dependant on Maven version
> > used (starting from the Maven version that has this pre-built repo). And
> > user would better see the default dependencies by looking at this
> > pre-builot repo = something I'm sure they will do (but they don't have a
> > look at lifecycle definition files, which are opaque for them)
> > 
> > I didn't have time to work on implementing this idea, I suppose this would
> > just require a new default repository with file://${maven.home}/default-
> > plugins/ url, and to fill this repo at build time with appropriate
> > go-offline
> Sounds like a good idea but would produce a lot of bloat, wouldn't it?
what do you call "bloat"? and what do you call "a lot"? Is it better to 
download plugin artifacts from network instead?

> All plugin dependency trees. This should be configurable in settings.xml
> and MDEP should provide a goal to populate such a repo.
> I am afraid that no one will pick this up anytime soon.
> 
> Do you know completely reject the issue to be merged?
I'd like to have us understand each other:
- what do you expect to win?
- what do we loose?
I know doing this update is easy to do and corresponds to a lot of good 
intentions on giving latest of everything for lazy users: but the consequences 
are IMHO not so positive and are for the moment misunderstood/ignored
My position is not definitive, the discussion on evaluating with multiple many 
eyes if this change is really good or not, and goot at what, will make my final 
opinion on this: but sure, for the moment, I'm not convinced this update goes 
in a good direction

Any other view on this?

Regards,

Hervé

> 
> Michael
> 
> > Le jeudi 11 mai 2017, 22:30:43 CEST Michael Osipov a écrit :
> >> Who seconds MNG-6169 for 3.5.1? I have a fully working branch
> >> (MNG-6169_2/not-updated-MJAR-MCOMPILER) passing all ITs on Windows 10
> >> and FreeBSD 10.3-RELEASE.
> >> 
> >> Jenkins build is flaky with notorious file://target/null artifact not
> >> found.
> >> 
> >> Some bindings haven't been updated because they cause several ITs to
> >> fail (regressions). I will report them separately.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Michael
> >> 
> >> -
> >> 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
> 
> -
> 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: [MNG-6169] Lifecycle/binding plugin version updates

[Michael Osipov]

Am 2017-05-12 um 08:25 schrieb Hervé BOUTEMY:

Jenkins build is not flaky: it is strict on dependency resolution from cache,
which is an intent, not a bug


Traced down last missing dependencies and added them to Bootstrap IT. 
Branch MNG-6169 created on the Core ITs.


Michael



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

Re: [MNG-6169] Lifecycle/binding plugin version updates

[Michael Osipov]

Am 2017-05-11 um 22:46 schrieb Robert Scholte:

Is m-compiler-p on 3.6.1? please change to 3.5.1 until jigsaw stuff works 
correctly.


Version has been downgraded.


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

Re: [MNG-6169] Lifecycle/binding plugin version updates

[Chas Honton]

Can we declare explicitly that this pom does not inherit from super pom?

Chas

> On May 12, 2017, at 4:50 AM, Michael Osipov  wrote:
> 
>> Am 2017-05-12 um 08:25 schrieb Hervé BOUTEMY:
>> Jenkins build is not flaky: it is strict on dependency resolution from cache,
>> which is an intent, not a bug
> 
> This pretty much explains why a lot of ITs fail here at work with a empty 
> repo. I will to work this through.
> 
>> that's why I don't like changing default plugins versions:
>> 
>> 1. depending on default plugins versions is a bad practice: IMHO, having old
>> plugins helps people know that they should not rely on it
> 
> This basically means that people would need to provide versions explicitly in 
> the POMs starting with Maven 4. Looks like a lot of hassle, doesn't it? I'd 
> better see this in the Super POM rather embedded in a JAR.
> 
>> 2. people who do a "dependency:go-offline" with a previous Maven version but 
>> run
>> offline with updated Maven version will see their build fail and report about
>> dependency:go-offline not being reliable, which is technically not true, but 
>> is
>> sensitive to Maven version (something that is hard to explain)
> 
> Pretty good point. We should actually ad this information to the goal doc. 
> This will also fail if your change your POM.
> 
>> On the first objection, it's a question of choice on how to promote the good
>> practice about explicitely choosing your plugins versions
>> 
>> On the second objection, I had an idea of Maven core improvement that would 
>> fix
>> the go-offline dependency on Maven version used: what if Maven core 
>> distribution
>> did contain a (read-only) local repo with default plugins already resolved?
>> 
>> With such a feature, go-offline would not be dependant on Maven version used
>> (starting from the Maven version that has this pre-built repo). And user 
>> would
>> better see the default dependencies by looking at this pre-builot repo =
>> something I'm sure they will do (but they don't have a look at lifecycle
>> definition files, which are opaque for them)
>> 
>> I didn't have time to work on implementing this idea, I suppose this would
>> just require a new default repository with file://${maven.home}/default-
>> plugins/ url, and to fill this repo at build time with appropriate go-offline
> 
> Sounds like a good idea but would produce a lot of bloat, wouldn't it? All 
> plugin dependency trees. This should be configurable in settings.xml and MDEP 
> should provide a goal to populate such a repo.
> I am afraid that no one will pick this up anytime soon.
> 
> Do you know completely reject the issue to be merged?
> 
> Michael
> 
>> Le jeudi 11 mai 2017, 22:30:43 CEST Michael Osipov a écrit :
>>> Who seconds MNG-6169 for 3.5.1? I have a fully working branch
>>> (MNG-6169_2/not-updated-MJAR-MCOMPILER) passing all ITs on Windows 10
>>> and FreeBSD 10.3-RELEASE.
>>> 
>>> Jenkins build is flaky with notorious file://target/null artifact not found.
>>> 
>>> Some bindings haven't been updated because they cause several ITs to
>>> fail (regressions). I will report them separately.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Michael
>>> 
>>> -
>>> 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
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -
> 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: [MNG-6169] Lifecycle/binding plugin version updates

[Michael Osipov]

Am 2017-05-12 um 19:23 schrieb Chas Honton:

How can the super pom be explicitly added to the project's pom?


Not necessary, the Super POM is in a JAR distributed with Maven and 
automatically used.



On May 12, 2017, at 4:50 AM, Michael Osipov  wrote:


Am 2017-05-12 um 08:25 schrieb Hervé BOUTEMY:
Jenkins build is not flaky: it is strict on dependency resolution from cache,
which is an intent, not a bug


This pretty much explains why a lot of ITs fail here at work with a empty repo. 
I will to work this through.


that's why I don't like changing default plugins versions:

1. depending on default plugins versions is a bad practice: IMHO, having old
plugins helps people know that they should not rely on it


This basically means that people would need to provide versions explicitly in 
the POMs starting with Maven 4. Looks like a lot of hassle, doesn't it? I'd 
better see this in the Super POM rather embedded in a JAR.


2. people who do a "dependency:go-offline" with a previous Maven version but run
offline with updated Maven version will see their build fail and report about
dependency:go-offline not being reliable, which is technically not true, but is
sensitive to Maven version (something that is hard to explain)


Pretty good point. We should actually ad this information to the goal doc. This 
will also fail if your change your POM.


On the first objection, it's a question of choice on how to promote the good
practice about explicitely choosing your plugins versions

On the second objection, I had an idea of Maven core improvement that would fix
the go-offline dependency on Maven version used: what if Maven core distribution
did contain a (read-only) local repo with default plugins already resolved?

With such a feature, go-offline would not be dependant on Maven version used
(starting from the Maven version that has this pre-built repo). And user would
better see the default dependencies by looking at this pre-builot repo =
something I'm sure they will do (but they don't have a look at lifecycle
definition files, which are opaque for them)

I didn't have time to work on implementing this idea, I suppose this would
just require a new default repository with file://${maven.home}/default-
plugins/ url, and to fill this repo at build time with appropriate go-offline


Sounds like a good idea but would produce a lot of bloat, wouldn't it? All 
plugin dependency trees. This should be configurable in settings.xml and MDEP 
should provide a goal to populate such a repo.
I am afraid that no one will pick this up anytime soon.

Do you know completely reject the issue to be merged?

Michael


Le jeudi 11 mai 2017, 22:30:43 CEST Michael Osipov a écrit :

Who seconds MNG-6169 for 3.5.1? I have a fully working branch
(MNG-6169_2/not-updated-MJAR-MCOMPILER) passing all ITs on Windows 10
and FreeBSD 10.3-RELEASE.

Jenkins build is flaky with notorious file://target/null artifact not found.

Some bindings haven't been updated because they cause several ITs to
fail (regressions). I will report them separately.


Michael

-
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






-
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






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

Re: [MNG-6169] Lifecycle/binding plugin version updates

[Chas Honton]

How can the super pom be explicitly added to the project's pom?

Chas

> On May 12, 2017, at 4:50 AM, Michael Osipov  wrote:
> 
>> Am 2017-05-12 um 08:25 schrieb Hervé BOUTEMY:
>> Jenkins build is not flaky: it is strict on dependency resolution from cache,
>> which is an intent, not a bug
> 
> This pretty much explains why a lot of ITs fail here at work with a empty 
> repo. I will to work this through.
> 
>> that's why I don't like changing default plugins versions:
>> 
>> 1. depending on default plugins versions is a bad practice: IMHO, having old
>> plugins helps people know that they should not rely on it
> 
> This basically means that people would need to provide versions explicitly in 
> the POMs starting with Maven 4. Looks like a lot of hassle, doesn't it? I'd 
> better see this in the Super POM rather embedded in a JAR.
> 
>> 2. people who do a "dependency:go-offline" with a previous Maven version but 
>> run
>> offline with updated Maven version will see their build fail and report about
>> dependency:go-offline not being reliable, which is technically not true, but 
>> is
>> sensitive to Maven version (something that is hard to explain)
> 
> Pretty good point. We should actually ad this information to the goal doc. 
> This will also fail if your change your POM.
> 
>> On the first objection, it's a question of choice on how to promote the good
>> practice about explicitely choosing your plugins versions
>> 
>> On the second objection, I had an idea of Maven core improvement that would 
>> fix
>> the go-offline dependency on Maven version used: what if Maven core 
>> distribution
>> did contain a (read-only) local repo with default plugins already resolved?
>> 
>> With such a feature, go-offline would not be dependant on Maven version used
>> (starting from the Maven version that has this pre-built repo). And user 
>> would
>> better see the default dependencies by looking at this pre-builot repo =
>> something I'm sure they will do (but they don't have a look at lifecycle
>> definition files, which are opaque for them)
>> 
>> I didn't have time to work on implementing this idea, I suppose this would
>> just require a new default repository with file://${maven.home}/default-
>> plugins/ url, and to fill this repo at build time with appropriate go-offline
> 
> Sounds like a good idea but would produce a lot of bloat, wouldn't it? All 
> plugin dependency trees. This should be configurable in settings.xml and MDEP 
> should provide a goal to populate such a repo.
> I am afraid that no one will pick this up anytime soon.
> 
> Do you know completely reject the issue to be merged?
> 
> Michael
> 
>> Le jeudi 11 mai 2017, 22:30:43 CEST Michael Osipov a écrit :
>>> Who seconds MNG-6169 for 3.5.1? I have a fully working branch
>>> (MNG-6169_2/not-updated-MJAR-MCOMPILER) passing all ITs on Windows 10
>>> and FreeBSD 10.3-RELEASE.
>>> 
>>> Jenkins build is flaky with notorious file://target/null artifact not found.
>>> 
>>> Some bindings haven't been updated because they cause several ITs to
>>> fail (regressions). I will report them separately.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Michael
>>> 
>>> -
>>> 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
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -
> 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: [MNG-6169] Lifecycle/binding plugin version updates

[Michael Osipov]

Am 2017-05-12 um 08:25 schrieb Hervé BOUTEMY:

Jenkins build is not flaky: it is strict on dependency resolution from cache,
which is an intent, not a bug


This pretty much explains why a lot of ITs fail here at work with a 
empty repo. I will to work this through.



that's why I don't like changing default plugins versions:

1. depending on default plugins versions is a bad practice: IMHO, having old
plugins helps people know that they should not rely on it


This basically means that people would need to provide versions 
explicitly in the POMs starting with Maven 4. Looks like a lot of 
hassle, doesn't it? I'd better see this in the Super POM rather embedded 
in a JAR.



2. people who do a "dependency:go-offline" with a previous Maven version but run
offline with updated Maven version will see their build fail and report about
dependency:go-offline not being reliable, which is technically not true, but is
sensitive to Maven version (something that is hard to explain)


Pretty good point. We should actually ad this information to the goal 
doc. This will also fail if your change your POM.



On the first objection, it's a question of choice on how to promote the good
practice about explicitely choosing your plugins versions

On the second objection, I had an idea of Maven core improvement that would fix
the go-offline dependency on Maven version used: what if Maven core distribution
did contain a (read-only) local repo with default plugins already resolved?

With such a feature, go-offline would not be dependant on Maven version used
(starting from the Maven version that has this pre-built repo). And user would
better see the default dependencies by looking at this pre-builot repo =
something I'm sure they will do (but they don't have a look at lifecycle
definition files, which are opaque for them)

I didn't have time to work on implementing this idea, I suppose this would
just require a new default repository with file://${maven.home}/default-
plugins/ url, and to fill this repo at build time with appropriate go-offline


Sounds like a good idea but would produce a lot of bloat, wouldn't it? 
All plugin dependency trees. This should be configurable in settings.xml 
and MDEP should provide a goal to populate such a repo.

I am afraid that no one will pick this up anytime soon.

Do you know completely reject the issue to be merged?

Michael


Le jeudi 11 mai 2017, 22:30:43 CEST Michael Osipov a écrit :

Who seconds MNG-6169 for 3.5.1? I have a fully working branch
(MNG-6169_2/not-updated-MJAR-MCOMPILER) passing all ITs on Windows 10
and FreeBSD 10.3-RELEASE.

Jenkins build is flaky with notorious file://target/null artifact not found.

Some bindings haven't been updated because they cause several ITs to
fail (regressions). I will report them separately.


Michael

-
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






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

Re: [MNG-6169] Lifecycle/binding plugin version updates

[Hervé BOUTEMY]

Jenkins build is not flaky: it is strict on dependency resolution from cache, 
which is an intent, not a bug

that's why I don't like changing default plugins versions:

1. depending on default plugins versions is a bad practice: IMHO, having old 
plugins helps people know that they should not rely on it

2. people who do a "dependency:go-offline" with a previous Maven version but 
run 
offline with updated Maven version will see their build fail and report about 
dependency:go-offline not being reliable, which is technically not true, but is 
sensitive to Maven version (something that is hard to explain)

On the first objection, it's a question of choice on how to promote the good 
practice about explicitely choosing your plugins versions

On the second objection, I had an idea of Maven core improvement that would fix 
the go-offline dependency on Maven version used: what if Maven core 
distribution 
did contain a (read-only) local repo with default plugins already resolved?

With such a feature, go-offline would not be dependant on Maven version used 
(starting from the Maven version that has this pre-built repo). And user would 
better see the default dependencies by looking at this pre-builot repo = 
something I'm sure they will do (but they don't have a look at lifecycle 
definition files, which are opaque for them)

I didn't have time to work on implementing this idea, I suppose this would 
just require a new default repository with file://${maven.home}/default-
plugins/ url, and to fill this repo at build time with appropriate go-offline

WDYT?

Regards,

Hervé

Le jeudi 11 mai 2017, 22:30:43 CEST Michael Osipov a écrit :
> Who seconds MNG-6169 for 3.5.1? I have a fully working branch
> (MNG-6169_2/not-updated-MJAR-MCOMPILER) passing all ITs on Windows 10
> and FreeBSD 10.3-RELEASE.
> 
> Jenkins build is flaky with notorious file://target/null artifact not found.
> 
> Some bindings haven't been updated because they cause several ITs to
> fail (regressions). I will report them separately.
> 
> 
> Michael
> 
> -
> 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: [MNG-6169] Lifecycle/binding plugin version updates

[Michael Osipov]

Am 2017-05-11 um 22:46 schrieb Robert Scholte:

Is m-compiler-p on 3.6.1? please change to 3.5.1 until jigsaw stuff works 
correctly.


Yes, it is 3.5.1. I will downgrade to 3.5.1 shortly.


Michael


 Oorspronkelijk bericht Van: Michael Osipov  
Datum:11-05-2017  22:30  (GMT+01:00) Aan: Maven Developers List  
Onderwerp: [MNG-6169] Lifecycle/binding plugin version updates 
Who seconds MNG-6169 for 3.5.1? I have a fully working branch
(MNG-6169_2/not-updated-MJAR-MCOMPILER) passing all ITs on Windows 10
and FreeBSD 10.3-RELEASE.

Jenkins build is flaky with notorious file://target/null artifact not found.

Some bindings haven't been updated because they cause several ITs to
fail (regressions). I will report them separately.


Michael

-
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: [MNG-6169] Lifecycle/binding plugin version updates

[Robert Scholte]

Is m-compiler-p on 3.6.1? please change to 3.5.1 until jigsaw stuff works 
correctly.


Verzonden vanaf Samsung Mobile.

 Oorspronkelijk bericht Van: Michael Osipov 
 Datum:11-05-2017  22:30  (GMT+01:00) 
Aan: Maven Developers List  
Onderwerp: [MNG-6169] Lifecycle/binding plugin version updates 

Who seconds MNG-6169 for 3.5.1? I have a fully working branch 
(MNG-6169_2/not-updated-MJAR-MCOMPILER) passing all ITs on Windows 10 
and FreeBSD 10.3-RELEASE.

Jenkins build is flaky with notorious file://target/null artifact not found.

Some bindings haven't been updated because they cause several ITs to 
fail (regressions). I will report them separately.


Michael

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