> So it IS about us, the volunteers. > Is not about THEM, downstream users.
Not for me, for me and anything ASF is 100% about users and 0% about doers. Anything not aligned on that should stay a personal github project for me. > if they are stuck (due whatever policy or who knows what), they can just > stay with 3.9, 3.8 or whatever suits them. > Why align with the "stuck" ones? Don't get me wrong, I don't think we should stick to java 8 but we should embrace our users and ensure they can embrace what we deliver. If you release maven 4 in 2025 and nobody can use it except a few then it will stay a niche project compared to today where it is the main java build tool. Add the fact you will need ~2 years for maven 4 to be usable by people, then you just killed the project and its community IMHO. This is why I think we should stick to something in between, use not something outdated - as we all saw, java 21 warns about java 8 - but not the ultimate latest. That where my LTS-1 comes - but not today it means Java 21 with the projection we can do of a final release. If your point was about the "then" the reasoning is similar. See how alpha and beta are just dead releases except for people able to build a snapshot, if you release something with a too high minimum java version, it will be the same. Keep in mind a tool to be adapted must work, be efficient etc...but should also respect the 5mn setup. For a java person assuming you have a correct java is ok and then it must stay curl $maven && unzip && bin/mvn, please never any toolchain nor more advanced setup. It works theorically but there is likely no way people adopt it IMHO. Also please just consider the polls - even if they are all biased, the figures are significative enough - about java usage, https://www.azul.com/wp-content/uploads/final-2023-state-of-java-report.pdf for example. 2 LTS is generally always covering most people and hopefully it will go a bit faster in some years but as of today you really need 2 LTS if you want to be mainstream. Even JakartaEE just pushed back from 21 to 17 as a requirement due to the pressure from the community....and at ASF we don't really care about code at the end ;). Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance> Le mer. 21 févr. 2024 à 07:00, Christoph Läubrich <m...@laeubi-soft.de> a écrit : > I think I mentioned it elsewhere but the fact that maven requires Java > to run is actually a (sometimes annoying) implementation detail, so if > maven would simply ship with a (stripped) JVM, being a native binary or > actually would probably resolve some problems in the area of java > discussions. > > That the java compiler (and surefire) reuses the JVM maven runs on might > have been convenient in the past decades but if one really cares should > actually be configured to use a dedicated JVM anyways. > > > Am 20.02.24 um 21:49 schrieb Tamás Cservenák: > > Howdy, > > > > I intentionally used "Maven" here, and not "Maven 4" as I am sure the > > majority of Maven users do not run Maven on the same Java version they > > target with their build. We do not do that either. > > > > Some snippets from Herve (who is the ONLY one doing reproducible checks, > > kudos for that) votes: > > > > Sun, Feb 18, 2024, 9:38 AM > > [VOTE] Release Apache Maven Shade Plugin version 3.5.2 > > Reproducible Build ok: reference build done with JDK 11 on *nix > > > > Wed, Jan 31, 2024, 5:06 AM > > [VOTE] Release Apache Maven JLink Plugin version 3.2.0 > > Reproducible Builds ok: reference build done on *nix with JDK 21 and > umask > > 022 > > > > Mon, Jan 8, 2024, 8:29 AM > > [VOTE] Release Maven Plugin Tools version 3.11.0 > > Reproducible Builds ok: reference build done with JDK 8 on Windows with > > umask > > > > Mon, Dec 18, 2023, 8:59 AM > > [VOTE] Release Apache Maven Compiler Plugin version 3.12.0 > > Reproducible Builds ok: reference build done on *nix with JDK 21 and > umask > > 022 > > > > Mon, Dec 18, 2023, 8:59 AM > > [VOTE] Release Apache Maven Compiler Plugin version 3.12.0 > > Reproducible Builds ok: reference build done on *nix with JDK 21 and > umask > > 022 > > > > Wed, Nov 29, 2023, 8:16 AM > > [VOTE] Apache Maven Build Cache Extension 1.1.0 > > Reproducible Build ok: reference build done on *nix with JDK 11 > > > > Sun, Nov 19, 2023, 5:17 PM > > [VOTE] Release Maven Resolver 1.9.17 > > Reproducible Build ok: reference build done with JDK 21 on *nix with > umask > > 022 > > > > Sat, Oct 21, 2023, 4:34 PM > > VOTE] Apache Maven 4.0.0-alpha-8 release > > Reproducible Build ok: reference build done with JDK 21 on *nix with > umask > > 022 > > > > Mon, Oct 2, 2023, 9:11 AM > > [VOTE] Release Apache Maven 3.9.5 > > Reproducible not fully ok: reference build done with JDK 17 on *nix and > > umask 022 > > > > ==== > > > > This CLEARLY shows the tendency: > > - Michael does releases on Java 8 (on windows!), he is a known "aligner" > > and windows person :) > > - Olivier used the "minimum" required Java version (for build cache). > > - Unsure why Herve used Java 11 for the Shade plugin... I mean, he could > > use 21 but also 8, but he shot for 11 that was EOL at the moment of > release. > > - The rest is 21. > > > > ==== > > > > So, the question for those refusing anything other than Java 8 to _run_ > > Maven (or to revert: for those refusing to run Maven on "latest LTS", > that > > is currently 21): > > WHY? > > > > > > Thanks > > T > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > >
