I think that’s a real bad idea if you have to do local modifications to get to a working build environment. Maven is all about not requiring you to do that (anymore). So even requiring a certain Maven Version does not fit in that pattern (although unavoidable if you do not want to work with wrappers).
So this means: keep old standard versions and overwrite them always in poms. (And it means the amount of default versions should be reduced or at least not add new ones) Gruss Bernd -- http://bernd.eckenfels.net ________________________________ Von: Robert Scholte <rfscho...@apache.org> Gesendet: Samstag, Januar 12, 2019 5:07 PM An: Maven Developers List Betreff: Re: Update versions of all plugins in default-bindings.xml I had chats with both Adam Bien and Sebastian Daschner asking for a better way to work with a simple high-speed throw-away development pom. They are both working a lot with Java EE applications and want to rely on defaults as much as possible. So in a way they don't care about plugin versions. They only case about things in poms that does matter (unique to that project): dependencies However, with Java 9+ stuff they are forced to specify plugins with more recent versions right now. So here comes the idea of extensions: you can put it in your maven/lib/ext ONCE and your pom is again as clean as possible. This seems to be a common way of work for some kind of developers and it would make sense if Maven could support this. To me default plugin versions are bound to a minor Maven release, not a major. When starting with Maven and create your first hello world, it should work out of the box. Right now if you are using Java 11, you'll probably hit issues because some defaults won't work anymore. That's a bad thing to me and a valid reason to upgrade the plugins. I do understand Hervé concerns. We should motivate people to lock their plugins in their pom. Most of all the packaging-plugin is important. AFAIK all 3.0+ versions contain plugin bindings, in which case it should be good enough if that plugin is at least specified. thanks, Robert On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 16:24:31 +0100, Hervé BOUTEMY <herve.bout...@free.fr> wrote: > original idea, let's try to evaluate :) > > IMHO this could work for packaging plugins in default lifecycle, that are > defined in default-bindings.xml, but would not for other lifecycles that > are > configured in components.xml (without copy/pasting content not related to > plugins) > > I don't think an extension would be easier to use than a pom.xml, it's > even > IMHO worse since you have to create a new file in a new directory. > > one question is: is there a use case that an extension would permit that > a > parent pom would not? > the only case I see is if a user does not want to change his parent pom > (or > cannot): since we don't have "pluginManagement import" (like we have for > dependency management). > > > I think for the moment that a parent pom would be more classical, easier > to > explain: I don't really see a clear benefit to do the job as an extension > instead, this would IMHO make the change harder for users > > Regards, > > Hervé > > Le samedi 12 janvier 2019, 15:42:57 CET Robert Scholte a écrit : >> Just wondering, can this be solved by an extension? >> >> So instead of changing this in Maven Core itself, people can add an >> extension to Maven with the latest+stable releases. >> >> Hervé and I already discovered that current focus is mainly on plugins >> right now. We should also work on extensions. >> >> Robert >> >> On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 15:37:23 +0100, Hervé BOUTEMY >> <herve.bout...@free.fr> >> >> wrote: >> > Le vendredi 11 janvier 2019, 12:55:03 CET Tibor Digana a écrit : >> >> ok, Herve, the fact is that these plugins have been updated from >> time to >> >> time. >> > >> > yes, we did it in the past (years ago, look at the history) and went >> to >> > the >> > conclusion we should not do that to improve reproducibility, unless >> > there is a >> > strong reason to do it sometimes on some specific plugins >> > = what I'm trying to explain, for the moment without much success >> > >> > >> > What we could do would be to create a new POM to use as parent POM, >> that >> > would >> > define the versions of every plugin from the default lifecycles: this >> > would >> > avoid to have everybody to write the full list of plugins (which is a >> > pain: I >> > know because in MARCHETYPES-54 [1] I added the list in Maven >> > Archetypes...) >> > We could name it "maven-default-plugins", or if somebody has a better >> > idea. >> > This way, changing plugins versions would not be tied to changing >> Maven >> > version >> > >> > WDYT? >> > >> > Regards, >> > >> > Hervé >> > >> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MARCHETYPES-54 >> > >> >> How can we be on safe side with these updates? What is mandatory to >> do >> >> for >> >> such upgrade? >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 7:41 AM Hervé BOUTEMY <herve.bout...@free.fr> >> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> > As I wrote in many Jira issues over years on this topic, I'm not in >> >> >> >> favor >> >> >> >> > of >> >> > that >> >> > >> >> > To me, staying with the same default plugins versions from Maven >> >> >> >> version >> >> >> >> > to >> >> > Maven version is a feature: nobody should expect to change his >> Maven >> >> > version >> >> > to change the plugins versions >> >> > The best practice is to define plugins versions in your pom.xml (or >> >> > parent). >> >> > Getting very old versions of plugins by default is the best >> additional >> >> > feature >> >> > we have after the WARN "plugin version not defined" >> >> > >> >> > Then IMHO, upgrading default plugins versions is a bad idea, is a >> bad >> >> > message >> >> > = "you can continue to ignore the WARN on plugins versions and >> still >> >> >> >> get >> >> >> >> > newest and latest plugins" >> >> > >> >> > this leads IMHO to one (bad) reason for people to require Maven >> >> >> >> Wrapper >> >> >> >> > I know, this is counter intuitive, that's why it is required to >> really >> >> > take a >> >> > moment to think about it >> >> > >> >> > Regards, >> >> > >> >> > Hervé >> >> > >> >> > Le jeudi 10 janvier 2019, 17:08:57 CET Tibor Digana a écrit : >> >> > > Why we use old versions in default-bindings.xml? >> >> > > Can we update all versions in 3.6.1 release? >> >> > > >> >> > > Here is MNG-6557 which is related to Surefire but I guess this >> Jira >> >> > > issue >> >> > > can be freely related to all plugins. >> >> > > >> >> > > WDYT? >> >> > > Any objections to update all plugins and assign this issue in >> 3.6.1? >> >> > > >> >> > > Cheers >> >> > > Tibor >> >> > >> >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> > 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
