I agree.. we should go to the best version of each 3.x release so 3.0.5 (anything below has a bunch of issues)
3.1.1 (3.1.0 was effectively broken and hopefully nobody uses it) For 3.2 we dont know what that is yet ;-) manfred Karl Heinz Marbaise wrote on 12.10.2014 06:25: > Hi Robert, > > from my point of view minimum to 3.0.5 ...nothing below...afterwards > 3.1.1.....and then 3.2.1...the latest releases from the appropriate > release lines 3.0.X, 3.1.X, 3.2.X,.... > > I wouldn't go to 3.1.0 at the moment cause that could be > confusing....from user point of view...than there is a gap... > > 2.2.1 > 3.1.1 > > From my side... > > Kind regards > Karl Heinz Marbaise > > > Hi, >> >> Right now we change the Maven prerequisite to 2.2.1 and I noticed some >> new issues which already want to move it forward to 3.0.4. I wonder why >> to move to this version. >> >> Most (API-)changes have been introduced with the 3.0 alpha and beta >> releases. I don't think that the other 3.0.x releases provide that much >> more changes. >> So I would say that changing the required Maven version would be 3.0. >> *If* we want to force users not to use 3.0.4 due to the CVE-2013-0253, >> we should say that 3.0.5 is the next required version of Maven. >> And I could go one step further: if we want to get rid of the >> compatibility overhead for Aether (Sonatype versus Eclipse) we should >> change it to 3.1.0 >> >> So I'd prefer to move forward to 3.0, maybe even to 3.1.0, but not to >> 3.0.4 unless there are better reasons then I mentioned above. >> >> Any other opinions? >> >> thanks, >> Robert > > Kind regards > Karl Heinz Marbaise > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
