Gary, "core plugins" are controlled by us, and they always followed this "standard" (version major was showing Maven API level).
But true, for EXTERNAL plugins, this will be quite an interesting thing. They will probably solve the "migrated to Maven 4 API" by major version bump. Maven2 was "short lived" if you compare it to Maven3: roughly 2006-2009 (3 years?) vs 2010-today (14 years?) And probably Maven3 made us "comfy" and easy to forget about _changes_ in major version (like mvn2 vs mvn3 or mvn3 vs mvn4) T On Fri, Mar 8, 2024 at 9:33 PM Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 8, 2024, 2:56 PM Michael Osipov <micha...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Am 2024-03-08 um 20:51 schrieb Gary Gregory: > > > IMO, the old version + 0.10 is a recipe for confusion and explanations > > for > > > this and that exception. > > > > I totally agree with you, that is a horrible compromise. Do you see a > > better way to reconcile both issues? I don't see any :-( > > > > First let me say that I am a Maven fan and I don't want whatever I say here > to be viewed as criticism of tech or people. > > From a user's point of view, using "maven4" as a plugin prefix is both > obvious and simple to explain. > > Using a plugin version of 4.x or (gasp) 40.x is not great, mostly because > my personal expectation is that it is the plugins' business to label > themselves with whatever version they wants. The point "this is a core plug > in, so..." is irrelevant to user's just like, as user, I should not need to > know that "cd" is builtin a shell vs. a program like "grep" which is not. > > Gary > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > > > >
