Il dom 13 gen 2019, 12:53 Stephen Connolly <stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> I think where we want to go is warnings and no version injected. Thus if > you ignore the warnings you get latest version always *and* we don’t have > to update the versions ever. ;-) > > Add a CLI option to fail if versions unspecified. > > Start publishing base parent poms defining a profile of plugin versions > (and when 5.0.0 comes along they become mixins) > > If we publish a base parent pom then users can just follow that. It could > use semver to decide how aggressively to bump versions. > > Imho we need to get out of the game of supplying versions to users from the > Maven tool itself > I totally agree with this Stephen's proposal ! It is the right choice in the mid term. The only variant would be to have empty binding by default, so that without and plugin Maven does mostly nothing (with a warning ?) Enrico > On Sun 13 Jan 2019 at 11:16, Tibor Digana <tibordig...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Robert, your email still was not totally concrete. > > I understand it like this; the warnings proposed by Herve been introduced > > in the nearest version 3.6.x, and an update of default bindings in 3.7.0. > > Do we understand it in the same roadmap? > > > > In my experiences, developers do not read warnings because they do not > have > > time and they expect Maven been an executor which should "just work". > Even > > nobody cares in the log at all except the end, whether it is BUILD > SUCCESS > > or failure. And then the people track failed tests or compilations > errors, > > but never the log or warnings on the top, never. > > > > T > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 13, 2019 at 11:37 AM Robert Scholte <rfscho...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > This is indeed a good approach. > > > The first group doesn't care about this warning, the second one should. > > > > > > Hervé, can you confirm that in case of *only* specifying the latest > > > maven-jar-plugin or maven-war-plugin or other packaging plugin, you > won't > > > get these warnings. > > > It really matters where the default lifecycle bindings are comings > from: > > > maven-core or packaging plugin. > > > > > > All this is an interesting feature worth for 3.7.0 > > > > > > thanks, > > > Robert > > > > > > On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 04:39:15 +0100, Hervé BOUTEMY < > herve.bout...@free.fr > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > we have 2 opposite objectives: > > > > - make default near-empty pom work at best, > > > > - but force people to have defined plugins versions (then not really > > > > empty pom) to get stable build > > > > > > > > and I checked about the warning message: I was wrong, there is no > > > > warning message when plugins without versions are injected by default > > > > lifecycle bindings > > > > > > > > Just test for yourself following pom.xml from any beginner: > > > > <project> > > > > <modelVersion>4.0.0</modelVersion> > > > > <groupId>com.mycompany.app</groupId> > > > > <artifactId>my-app</artifactId> > > > > <version>1.0-SNAPSHOT</version> > > > > </project> > > > > > > > > it works = what we expect to ease newcomers experience > > > > but there is no warning... > > > > > > > > IMHO, this is where we need to improve the tool, by adding a warning: > > > > I worked on a PoC of DefaultLifecycleBindingsInjector improvement > that > > > > displays: > > > > [WARNING] > > > > [WARNING] Some problems were encountered while building the effective > > > > model for com.mycompany.app:my-app:jar:1.0-SNAPSHOT > > > > [WARNING] Using default plugins versions from bindings: > > > > [org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-clean-plugin, > > > > org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-install-plugin, > > > > org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-resources-plugin, > > > > org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-surefire-plugin, > > > > org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-compiler-plugin, > > > > org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-jar-plugin, > > > > org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-deploy-plugin, > > > > org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-site-plugin] > > > > [WARNING] > > > > [WARNING] It is highly recommended to fix these problems because they > > > > threaten the stability of your build. > > > > [WARNING] > > > > [WARNING] For this reason, future Maven versions might no longer > > > support > > > > building such malformed projects. > > > > [WARNING] > > > > > > > > With this warning, and a parent pom to have an easy fix (instead of 8 > > > > plugins versions definition), IMHO, we have what we strongly need. > > > > > > > > And even better, with this warning in place to avoid people to > continue > > > > to rely on default plugins versions (because of the nasty warning), I > > > > could find upgrading default plugins versions not an issue any > more!!! > > > > > > > > Should we try to go this route? > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Hervé > > > > > > > > Le dimanche 13 janvier 2019, 00:15:38 CET Stephen Connolly a écrit : > > > >> The original plan was to make plugin version mandatory. Perhaps > 3.7.0 > > is > > > >> the time to do that, with a CLI option (to be removed after 3.7.x) > to > > > >> pull > > > >> in the 3.6.x default versions if your pom is missing plugin > versions. > > > >> > > > >> The warning has been there long enough. Let’s pull the trigger. > > > >> > > > >> On Sat 12 Jan 2019 at 21:34, Tibor Digana <tibordig...@apache.org> > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > I have a strong reason to update Surefire due to new JRE versions > > have > > > >> > been > > > >> > updated too many times last two years. > > > >> > They required a fix done within a few days and some of them are > > > >> shaking on > > > >> > the chair... > > > >> > Our Maven Core is stable and Java 9+ ready but the obsolete > plugins > > > >> are > > > >> > not. > > > >> > I want only the same compatibility with default plugins because > > > >> people do > > > >> > not see these plugins as a distinct community. They are both Maven > > and > > > >> > plugins from us Apache, so they most probably would expect it > > > >> consistent > > > >> > altogether. > > > >> > Makes sense? > > > >> > > > > >> > On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 7:24 PM Bernd Eckenfels > > > >> <e...@zusammenkunft.net> > > > >> > > > > >> > wrote: > > > >> > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > -- > Sent from my phone > -- -- Enrico Olivelli
