Le dimanche 13 janvier 2019, 11:37:43 CET Robert Scholte a écrit : > 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. I don't understand why you are talking about "latest": this has to do with versions injected from default lifecycle plugin bindings, whatever the version is And it perfectly detects if on the 8 plugins benefiting from default lifecycle plugin binding, 6 have a versions defined but only 2 have not then inherit the version form the default lifecycle plugin bindings
> It really matters where the default lifecycle bindings are comings from: > maven-core or packaging plugin. currently, they come from default-bindings.xml in core I'll prepare a Jira issue and a branch for review Regards, Hervé > > 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
