Hello! I would like to hear clarification on what happened in MARCHETYPES, as from everywhere I look into this it confuses me.
I had opened https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MARCHETYPES-76 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MARCHETYPES-77 and https://github.com/apache/maven-archetypes/pull/18 fixing MARCHETYPES-76 It was dangling for some time, then I poked this list and it was imediately looked into. TY! The https://github.com/apache/maven-archetypes/pull/18 was reviewed, all parts of it were discussed and it was merged. The only week point of it was that it mixed also one refactoring in separate commit and I did not know it will be sqashed with merge. Knowing that, it would be separate PR. Simialrly it included two commits for readability - one with siomgleline bump of maven compiler and second- much bigger - adapting the tests. I think this two commits should in one PR and shold not be squashed. If they will be squashed, its ok. Today I had opened https://github.com/apache/maven-archetypes/pull/20 with corresponding https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MARCHETYPES-78 It was closed without reasoning - it did not even wait for reply to the single question it posted. In addition it was "surpassed" by https://github.com/apache/maven-archetypes/pull/22 whcih was reverting the PR#18 without justification and was including also PR#22. Where it also included great + with: + jdk-matrix: '[ "8", "11", "17", "21" ]' It did not justified anything else. Later - after many confusing comments which proved a bit of misunderstanding from apache side, the PR#18, which was approved by two reviews as by policy, was reverted witout any explaantion or discussion (???!????). Note, this is no blame, I'm jsut confused by the events and I do not understand why it have happened. And tbh, it is pretty demotivating. So I'm asking, why the person who did it, did it, and also am asking what is now expected form me. If the reverted commit was so wrong, why it was let in? If there is comment "ok all reverted. feel free to reopen PR with correct changes" what is wanted fro me, and why the person who acted literally waste time of all others? My understending of what is needed/wanted: - submit https://github.com/apache/maven-archetypes/pull/22/commits/9eea2ff0ffb5f1a01b5ff6eeb2722ee71ac8f73f (the jdk-matrix: '[ "8", "11", "17", "21" ]') as first and separate PR without its own jira -- note that the requester will be not satisfied, as the integration tests are passing on jdk 21. Fact that theirs output is not usable byt he jdk21 is not tested. -- also: no, I'm now not motivated to enhance the suite to fail properly for all affected components - submit https://github.com/apache/maven-archetypes/pull/18/commits/9d59f3188638086501fa4a40b141360eabdc1a48 (the reffactoring) as separte changeset without its specific jira - submit the https://github.com/apache/maven-archetypes/pull/18/commits/22520884a7d0bbc8cf1dd248cf2873cff9ffc26f (fix for MARCHETYPES-76) commit with the test adaptation of https://github.com/apache/maven-archetypes/pull/18/commits/a7904177028ee6c3694856f8893434de77adc3cc in one PR under MARCHETYPES-76 - leave https://github.com/apache/maven-archetypes/pull/20 as it will be looked into as resolving MARCHETYPES-78 with work in former PR#18 taken in account. As this - after all that waiting, reviewing, aprooving and reverting is a bit reedundant work, i want to be sure that we agree on what everybody wishes - as all is explained in MARCHETYPES-78 and MARCHETYPES-76 (+the https://github.com/apache/maven-archetypes/pull/18 and paritally also https://github.com/apache/maven-archetypes/pull/20 and https://github.com/apache/maven-archetypes/pull/22) Maybe one more missing expalnatin from me: I had first acted on maven-archetype-quickstart because I ws dirrectly afected by it, it had a bigger changes due to tests, and I was not sure how t will be accepted by wider community. I always had an intention to fix all others once I will check how things go. And I'm really not sure why the fix for and new issue, was a cause to revert quite good and approved change - by actually one of the reviwers. J.
