+1 to Jorge. As I understand it, this is the "minimal version supported" (prerequisite) we talk about here. But imo 3.x plugins should compile against lastest 3.x Maven.
T On Sun, Dec 31, 2023, 00:35 Jorge Solórzano <jor...@gmail.com> wrote: > I know that a build tool is different from a framework, but we are again > missing the point here, is not about framework vs build tools, the point is > that newer projects already require new Java versions, and if legacy > projects require using an old Java version, then those projects will still > be using Maven 3.x anyway and that is perfectly fine. What should be the > threshold to move to a newer Java version? (I'm talking about using Java 11 > on Maven 4.0, not on 3.x). > > Sorry I didn't want to hijack this thread for the Java version discussion, > yet I wish to know what is the benefit of "supporting" plugins on older > versions of Maven, I'm asking as a user since I'm not a Maven core > developer, PMC,r committer, just an occasional contributor, and again, I > might be missing something, but what is the benefit of updating plugins on > a project and using an older version of Maven? As a user is weird to me > that Maven versions prior 3.8.x are EOL, yet plugins provide Maven API > compatibility down to 3.2.5. > > It seems that is indeed a new challenge to require Maven 3.6.3 as minimal > for core plugins ;) > > Regards and Happy New Year! > > > On Sat, Dec 30, 2023 at 6:30 PM Michael Osipov <micha...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > Am 2023-12-30 um 16:43 schrieb Jorge Solórzano: > > > I'm a bit confused here, why would anyone update Maven plugins in a > > project > > > and NOT update Maven Core? Older versions of Maven are EOL, is expected > > > that Maven Core is backward-compatible on minor releases so updating > > Maven > > > Core should be straightforward. I might be missing something but I > don't > > > see a scenario where someone updates plugins but does not update Maven > > > itself, I would expect the opposite, it should be more common to update > > > Maven core than plugins (although that is just my perception). > > > > > > The question remains: Why should we use 3.5.4 instead of 3.6.3 as a > > minimum > > > in plugins? don't get me wrong, I don't mind if we use 3.5.4 instead of > > > 3.6.3 if the maintenance/support is the same, but knowing that CI uses > > > Maven 3.6.3 and newer, and without knowing why plugins should be > > supported > > > on 3.5.4, my vote will go to use 3.6.3. > > > > > > This discussion reminds me of the minimum required Java version, there > > was > > > even an informal poll > > > <https://twitter.com/khmarbaise/status/1549429653202518016> with more > > than > > > 80% asking for newer Java releases, and I would love to see Maven 4.0 > > > require at least Java 11, but here we are, one year later and still on > > Java > > > 8 because some prefer to be working with Java 7 or even Java 6. The > > > ecosystem is moving forward, SpringBoot, Quarkus, Jakarta EE, and some > > > dependencies are slowly moving to at least Java 11, if a project > requires > > > Java 8 (for whatever reason), then it will remain on Maven 3.x, moving > to > > > Java 11 is conservative enough for Maven 4.0. > > > > You are confusing a low-level tool which should be accessible to > > everyone compared to a specific framework. Regarding Spring Boot: I > > consider that a total dick move dropping javax namespace support for a > > huge user base. Regardless of the Java version. > > > > M > > > > >
