Hyperbole easily made fact so let’s ask and then there will be no question. I have thousands of users in my organization, Igor likely has something similar. We don’t work together on a daily basis anymore but small changes have a dire impact and both of us care greatly about the preservation and consistency of behavior because it matters greatly in terms of usability, user trust in the systems we build, and real support costs. We also care about this on a large scale where these concerns are magnified intensely for all Maven users. It is a very well educated guess based on past experience that changes made like this reflect isolated development. Christian can clarify how many users he’s responsible for as I’m absolutely certain he’s not running a support organization. These concerns have always influenced my behavior, Igor is similar and I make zero apologies because it will impact my users, and will reflect poorly on the project globally and immediately. I will “trample” as much as necessary to preserve behavior for users. Igor and I have made fairly radical changes while preserving all existing behavior for existing users, we’ve outline how we did it: separate implementations, user opt-in, over time it may become default behavior if so desired by users.
Stephen, have you looked at the history for the core and the integration tests? What do you see? Tell me how much consensus we had for all those changes. ITs are broken in a fundamental way, no release notes in SVN, no notes anywhere I can see that would explain how the changes would impact a user or what they do to understand. This is how you go pretty far to losing your community. Our users are normal everyday developers, they just want things to work, all systems have quirks and many have just lived with the scar tissue, software gets delivered, compromises get made, people go home at the end of the day. For the succession of minor releases everything needs to work, we live with our baggage. This, to me what we have right now is a potential flaming train wreck waiting to happen. I’m not really concerned with one person who seems not to understand this. My concern is about destroying the trust we’ve built up over the years in one fell swoop. > On Nov 17, 2016, at 12:10 AM, Stephen Connolly > <stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Jason, your hyperbole has slipped again. There is no need to make > assertions about how many or what kind of users other developers have > worked with, as that both does not foster the community and deflects from > the valid point you were otherwise making. Christian has done the right > thing in seeking consensus before attempting to make a change in this area > and what thanks does he get? Instead he gets trampled on because in the > past he made breaking changes that would have had grave consequences. Do > not trample on somebody for doing the wrong thing in the past when they are > in the middle of doing the right thing! Jason, as to breaking changes in a > minor version... does that mean we can revert the immutable model changes > that broke lots of shade users builds? > > Christian, this project has historically taken very seriously the goal of > allowing users to upgrade Maven without breaking their existing builds. > Whether we should continue to do so is a separate question, but certainly > we cannot change mid-major version. > > I am still working on my proposal for a version 5 of Maven. I am proposing > version 5 for two reasons: > > 1. It allows us to align the modelVersion with the Maven version > 2. It gives space for behavioural changes before the big pom format change > > Now having said that, my proposal for Maven 5 is just *my* proposal. From > the point of view of making a decision for the direction of this project my > voice is just one voice amongst all the *committers*. It is the > *committers* that decide the direction of this project - not the PMC. The > PMC is responsible for governance and ensuring that releases meet the > foundation's legal criteria established by the board. > > I am encouraged by the energy Christian is showing for this project, in > part it has inspired me to put effort into describing my plan for a way > forward. > > What we need to do right now is get 3.4.0 released. That means ensuring > that the integration tests pass. In a separate part of this thread Igor > reports that there are 24 tests not passing against master. Somebody needs > to diagnose why those tests are failing. Some failures may require changes > to the integration tests... some may require fixing the code. Let's figure > out what the story is for those 24 tests. > > The point we need to remember about the goal for 3.4.0 is to be a release > with the code formerly known as Aether moved to the Maven project and bug > fixes applied to that code. We should keep our focus on that and try not to > grow the scope... there are users clamouring for fixing that set of > problems. > > Once we have the 3.4.x line then we should sit down and plan the path > forward. > > -Stephen > > > On 16 November 2016 at 05:44, Christian Schulte <c...@schulte.it> wrote: > >> To sum it up. I've asked the very same question a few weeks ago. That >> has lead to creating that maven-3.x-next branch. A few weeks later I get >> a different answer and that branch becomes obsolete and all JIRA issues >> for version 3.5.0 need updating and the branch can be deleted, because >> it became meaningless. >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org >> >> Thanks, Jason ---------------------------------------------------------- Jason van Zyl Founder, Takari and Apache Maven http://twitter.com/jvanzyl http://twitter.com/takari_io --------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
