+1 (possibly set the deps to 3.0.4 instead, and not 3.0.5) I don't think we need to branch the parent poms. That will just create unnecessary complexity. As you pointed out, plugins can continue to use the Q-1 version of the parent if the want to go with 2.x-compat (and add/override plugin upgrades/configs if needed).
I'm also very positive to "avoid a disorganized process of individual plugins"! /Anders On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 10:15 PM, Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com>wrote: > I think that Michael might be over-reading my intentions. I am not > trying to start a short-term avalanche of moving components to require > 3.0.5. My idea is: > > 1. We release parents that set up the 3.0.5 dependencies. Call that > version Q. > 2. Any maintainer who feels inclined to release a 2.2.x-compatible > component or plugin is welcome to continue to use parent Q-1. > 3. Any maintainer who feels inclined to move a component to the new > regime changes the parent version to Q. > > As far as I am concerned, it might take _years_ before everything > under the auspices of this project moves to require 3. > > > > On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Michael Osipov <micha...@apache.org> > wrote: > > Am 2014-02-23 21:20, schrieb Stephen Connolly: > > > >> On Sunday, 23 February 2014, Michael Osipov <micha...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> > >>> Am 2014-02-23 19:06, schrieb Benson Margulies: > >>> > >>>> I propose to make releases of our parent stack that are suitable for > >>>> components and plugins that are making the leap to Java 1.6 and Maven > >>>> 3 as their base requirements. > >>>> > >>>> What do people think is the right approach in terms of what stays on > >>>> trunk and what goes on a branch, and whether to do anything > >>>> distinctive to the version numbers? > >>>> > >>> > >>> Finally, someone's stepping up for such a good change. Though, I think > >>> some important stuff needs to be considered first: > >>> > >>> 1. Announce 2.x EOL and give people at least 3 months to switch. > >> > >> > >> > >> Already done and site updated > > > > > > Just had a hard time to find this information on the (front) page. > > I think a mere: 2014-02-18 End of Life EoL notes, announce is not > enough. I > > would have expected something like this on the front page: > > > > Looking for Maven 2? > > // Either some text > > // or the link to the EoL announcement. > > > > > >>> 2. If you align plugins with a 3.0 baseline, I would bump at least a > >>> minor > >>> version, maybe even a major one. > >> > >> > >> > >> I think bumping a major version would be fair and proper... But we don't > >> have a formal policy yet, and a minor version bump might be valid too. > > > > > > Beside the general draft [1] we do already have two good policies. Even > one > > at Apache APR [2], and semver.org. > > > > Micahel > > > > [1] > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/Version+number+policy > > [2] https://apr.apache.org/versioning.html#strategy > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > >
