On Tue 16 May 2017 at 22:40, Hervé BOUTEMY <herve.bout...@free.fr> wrote:
> Le lundi 15 mai 2017, 07:20:08 CEST Stephen Connolly a écrit : > > On Sun 14 May 2017 at 08:51, Hervé BOUTEMY <herve.bout...@free.fr> > 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 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 > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > -- Sent from my phone
