I missed jvz's question: yes for removal of deprecations eagerly. If anything, we should start doing that eagerly (4 years?), and declare this step as transitioning one toward 4.0?
thanks, ~t~ (mobile) On Jan 5, 2014 11:29 AM, "Tamás Cservenák" <[email protected]> wrote: > As i mentioned in referenced thread, i would really like to see maven at > java7. > > We talk about release to happen in near future, that would be used in a > bit further future by users, but even _today_ there is no other java than 7 > that is not eol-d. For those locked in, there are still 3.0, 3.1 releases > (and 3.2?) > > I know others have other "wishes" for 4.0 but in this case i really see no > rationale to not make this step. > > thanks, > ~t~ (mobile) > On Jan 5, 2014 10:43 AM, "Stephen Connolly" < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> On Saturday, 4 January 2014, Jason van Zyl wrote: >> >> > >> > On Jan 4, 2014, at 4:56 PM, Stephen Connolly < >> > [email protected] <javascript:;>> wrote: >> > >> > > Doing so would make the next version 4.0 and not 3.2 >> > > >> > > I don't mind if we want to do that, but we were supposed to be >> pushing a >> > > 3.2 out at the start of Oct and I do wonder what the status is there >> > > >> > >> > 3.1.1 was released on September 17th so we're a bit overdue for trying >> to >> > keep the quarterly schedule, but I asked to update the source levels >> > because it was after September. I didn't know that implied a release >> right >> > then. But then an email discussion chain ensued and I lost track. >> > >> > If we're going to bump to 4.0 then I will sift through the core and look >> > for more deprecated code. Might as well do a removal, and bump the >> runtime >> > level to 1.6. >> > >> > >> I guess my PoV is what new features are we adding that make it a 4.0? >> >> I personally think we should cut 3.2 with the 1.6 bump and get that out >> >> For The 4.0 version number I would like to see some new features... >> >> Otoh we could hold off new features for 5.0 with the excuse that we were >> aligning maven's version number with the modelVersion to remove >> confusion.., but that is a card we can only play once >> >> > >> > > On Saturday, 4 January 2014, Jason van Zyl wrote: >> > > >> > >> I'm doing some cleanup in the core in preparation for some >> refactoring >> > I'd >> > >> like to propose in the coming months and the deprecated methods in >> > >> MavenSession have been there for over 4 years. I'd like to, at some >> > point >> > >> soon, be able to move the core and plugins to toward being fully >> JSR330 >> > so >> > >> I'd like to start purging references to Plexus. There are lots of >> them >> > in >> > >> MavenSession. >> > >> >> > >> If no one has any objections I'd like to remove the deprecated >> > >> constructors and methods from MavenSession. >> > >> >> > >> Thanks, >> > >> >> > >> Jason >> > >> >> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------- >> > >> Jason van Zyl >> > >> Founder, Apache Maven >> > >> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------- >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > > >> > > -- >> > > Sent from my phone >> > >> > Thanks, >> > >> > Jason >> > >> > ---------------------------------------------------------- >> > Jason van Zyl >> > Founder, Apache Maven >> > http://twitter.com/jvanzyl >> > --------------------------------------------------------- >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> -- >> Sent from my phone >> >
