Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Maven 4.0.0-beta-3

[Mateusz Gajewski]

+1 (nb)

Tested here:
https://github.com/trinodb/trino/pull/22082

On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 17:12 Guillaume Nodet  wrote:

> This is a vote to release Apache Maven 4.0.0-beta-3, as I've cut another
> release to fix blocking issues found in beta-2.
>
>
> We solved 25 issues:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12316922=12354634
>
> There are still some issues in JIRA:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/MNG/issues
>
> Release candidates:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/maven/maven-4/4.0.0-beta-3/
>
> Staging repository:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-2126/
>
> Source release SHA512:
> - apache-maven-4.0.0-beta-3-src.zip
>
> 4125acba32218e341b34c1bbe7700f5aa71947fd1a6a5d418825822099800e3b798a5300eaf711e0709866b7e5fc6fee323515af18d8ab25d7eaac034d72b1c6
> - apache-maven-4.0.0-beta-3-src.tar.gz
>
> 8ca063a72fdacbcbe4afc33fc46e6c8920327092d11f3d8a77723ce995c3e24d1e8413cce3d5bc59a47657316834bfb9d4706d8bdffa5da5e147bcb404381808
>
> Staging site:
> https://maven.apache.org/ref/4-LATEST/
>
> Guide to testing staged releases:
> https://maven.apache.org/guides/development/guide-testing-releases.html
>
> The vote is open for at least 72 hours.
>
> [ ] +1
> [ ] +0
> [ ] -1
>
> --
> Guillaume Nodet
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Maven 3.9.7

[Mateusz Gajewski]

+1 (nb)

On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 08:36 Romain Manni-Bucau 
wrote:

> Agree with Tamas, these are new minor features for the tool so a patch
> version is ok.
> That said, strictly speaking maven versioning is
> arbitrary.arbitrary.(last+1) so we respect our contract ;).
> Using semantic versioning would require use to have been in at least 6.x or
> 7.x due to the aggregation nature of maven so think we are good like that
> and it is saner to enable this kind of update than requiring them to create
> a ton of version branches which will never be maintained so it is a good
> trade off IMHO.
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau  |  Blog
>  | Old Blog
>  | Github <
> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> LinkedIn  | Book
> <
> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
> >
>
>
> Le mer. 22 mai 2024 à 23:32, Tamás Cservenák  a
> écrit :
>
> > Hej Gary
> >
> > I agree, and TBH i moved MNG-8030 to "new feature", originally it was
> > improvement (and now would move it back).
> >
> > The -itr OTOH is "new feature" as in it makes really simple to ignore
> > "remote repositories introduced by transitive POMs" but you could achieve
> > similar effect with already existing features as well (but not so
> simple).
> > This, combined with RRF (remote repo filtering) is a killer feature. We
> > just wanted it out in the wild.
> >
> > My 5 cents
> > T
> >
> > On Wed, May 22, 2024, 22:50 Gary D. Gregory  wrote:
> >
> > > Hi All:
> > >
> > > As a user, I don't expect 2 new features in a maintenance release.
> > > It would be nice to use semantic versioning to manage expectations.
> > >
> > > 2c & TY!
> > > Gary
> > >
> > > On 2024/05/22 10:09:20 Tamás Cservenák wrote:
> > > > Howdy,
> > > >
> > > > We solved 21 issues:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12316922=12353964
> > > >
> > > > There are still a couple of issues left in JIRA:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20MNG%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved
> > > >
> > > > Staging repo:
> > > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-2125/
> > > >
> > > > Dev dist directory (binary bundles updated):
> > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/maven/maven-3/3.9.7/
> > > >
> > > > Source release checksums:
> > > > apache-maven-3.9.7-src.tar.gz.sha512
> > > >
> > >
> >
> a3c211ce683afbde9c4becf8b32397d14d3e7d8e8261094da037dcf27a697a93134440e055e7a9e7e26af2db543d4d9c4e7b0296560f5193df7ba90b9a68d1d1
> > > >
> > > > apache-maven-3.9.7-src.zip.sha512
> > > >
> > >
> >
> cdd8249807e251d07c613a65120058993e47a4cbf7f6dbda8599c7ca7ab4ed3fedc727e651f43cba0e9b0d604055c1106c1243be64a1d52c5ddf72dbec5e65dc
> > > >
> > > > Staged site:
> > > > https://maven.apache.org/ref/3-LATEST/
> > > >
> > > > Draft for release notes:
> > > > https://github.com/apache/maven-site/pull/521
> > > >
> > > > Guide to testing staged releases:
> > > >
> http://maven.apache.org/guides/development/guide-testing-releases.html
> > > >
> > > > Vote open for 72h
> > > >
> > > > [ ] +1
> > > > [ ] +0
> > > > [ ] -1
> > > >
> > >
> > > -
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Maven 4.0.0-beta-2

[Mateusz Gajewski]

Can we get beta-3 soon? :)

On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 12:38 PM Tamás Cservenák 
wrote:

> +1
>
> But as we know today, this was really too early to call it "beta". We
> discovered issues that may introduce API changes...
>
> On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 7:41 PM Guillaume Nodet  wrote:
>
> > I've cut another release after having fixed a bug in the consumer pom
> > creation.
> >
> > This is a vote to release Apache Maven 4.0.0-beta-1.
> >
> > We solved 21 issues:
> >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12316922=
> > 12354392
> > <
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12316922=12354392
> > >
> >
> > There are still some issues in JIRA:
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/MNG/issues
> >
> > Release candidates:
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/maven/maven-4/4.0.0-beta-2/
> >
> > Staging repository:
> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-2117/
> >
> > Source release SHA512:
> > - apache-maven-4.0.0-beta-1-src.zip
> >
> >
> >
> 0dff19216028ed7ab15914795c62a2a3247b9f45daedfd0db88266edecf97f16c888c7aac501b6b2d9373e03c828e9ba30f9837cfaafd9a4f32b04fa0776e0d3
> > - apache-maven-4.0.0-beta-1-src.tar.gz
> >
> >
> >
> 04df9d340081fa5cc4c840fee4bbed0d65d2d622e9cdbc0a713438a104933485f22d31bf4b35ce695913b790cf10f11f8f31ce73e0a796debfe7fc99268d9701
> >
> > Staging site:
> > https://maven.apache.org/ref/4-LATEST/
> >
> > Guide to testing staged releases:
> > https://maven.apache.org/guides/development/guide-testing-releases.html
> >
> > The vote is open for at least 72 hours.
> >
> > [ ] +1
> > [ ] +0
> > [ ] -1
> >
> > --
> > 
> > Guillaume Nodet
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Maven 4.0.0-beta-2

[Mateusz Gajewski]

-1 from our testing at Trino (https://github.com/trinodb/trino/pull/21966)

Previous alphas worked for us, beta-2 doesn't. It seems to complain about
our custom packaging ("trino-plugin") that is defined by the
trino-maven-plugin here:
https://github.com/trinodb/trino-maven-plugin/blob/master/src/main/resources-filtered/META-INF/plexus/components.xml#L4

On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 12:35 PM Karl Heinz Marbaise
 wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
> +1 from me.
>
> Kind regards
> Karl Heinz Marbaise
> On 13.05.24 19:40, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
> > I've cut another release after having fixed a bug in the consumer pom
> > creation.
> >
> > This is a vote to release Apache Maven 4.0.0-beta-1.
> >
> > We solved 21 issues:
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12316922=
> > 12354392
> > <
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12316922=12354392
> >
> >
> > There are still some issues in JIRA:
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/MNG/issues
> >
> > Release candidates:
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/maven/maven-4/4.0.0-beta-2/
> >
> > Staging repository:
> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-2117/
> >
> > Source release SHA512:
> > - apache-maven-4.0.0-beta-1-src.zip
> >
> >
> 0dff19216028ed7ab15914795c62a2a3247b9f45daedfd0db88266edecf97f16c888c7aac501b6b2d9373e03c828e9ba30f9837cfaafd9a4f32b04fa0776e0d3
> > - apache-maven-4.0.0-beta-1-src.tar.gz
> >
> >
> 04df9d340081fa5cc4c840fee4bbed0d65d2d622e9cdbc0a713438a104933485f22d31bf4b35ce695913b790cf10f11f8f31ce73e0a796debfe7fc99268d9701
> >
> > Staging site:
> > https://maven.apache.org/ref/4-LATEST/
> >
> > Guide to testing staged releases:
> > https://maven.apache.org/guides/development/guide-testing-releases.html
> >
> > The vote is open for at least 72 hours.
> >
> > [ ] +1
> > [ ] +0
> > [ ] -1
> >
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
>
>

Re: Nope, 3.5 isn't dead

[Mateusz Gajewski]

Hey Elliotte,

If the project you are referring to is the one that I'm thinking about, the
project I'm working on was in the same situation a couple of years back.

In the last 4 years, we've spent a significant amount of time and resources
to migrate Trino (https://github.com/trinodb/trino) from Travis/Jenkins to
Github Actions, from javax.* to jakarta.*, from JDK 8 to 11, then to 17, 21
and recently to 22. We've upgraded our Maven infrastructure, reported bugs
that we've encountered, contributed some fixes back and got to the point
where we can easily move to the latest Java version when it's released. We
are now ready for Maven 4.0 as we are continuously forward testing alpha
versions and reporting problems back to get next alphas even better and
closer to GA.

That said, all of that didn't happen overnight and to be honest I was
frustrated countless times trying to replace and upgrade some legacy stuff,
before we got to the point where we are today. With every problem that
we've encountered, we have received a tremendous amount of help from
different OSS projects and communities which always encourage us to move
forward, test new things and contribute fixes/improvements/feedback.

It's hard for me to believe and accept that these big companies, having
these vast resources, can't afford the same work that we did. And since
it's not a matter of resources, I know that this is a matter of recognition
by project leaders that staying on old, legacy build infrastructure/tools,
dependencies has increasing cost and brings only risks with little to no
benefits at the same time. If you accept these risks willingly, you can't
expect that others will share that pain with you.

Staying legacy isn't a way forward for any project and for the IT industry
in general. I acknowledge the pain that you have described and feeling
"that can't be done" but at the same time I know that it isn't impossible,
just hard/time-consuming/tedious/frustrating and requires both a strategic
decision, investment and meticulous work, nothing less, nothing more.

On Sat, Apr 13, 2024 at 4:38 PM Matthias Bünger 
wrote:

> Hey all,
>
> when I gave my talk about Maven 4 some days ago at the Javaland
> conference I started with a quick "what Maven version do you use"
> question and there were also several hands who use 3.6 and 3.3 (!). I
> hope I could convince them to upgrade - so it's the same with Java
> versions: There are always people who use very old out of support version.
>
> But as you wrote yourself: It's seems more than a "frozen" CI setup than
> a Maven problem.
>
> Matthias
>
> Am 13.04.2024 um 13:21 schrieb Elliotte Rusty Harold:
> > Maybe it should be, but I wanted to drop a note that about a month
> > after December's decision to require Maven 3.6.3, I shifted onto an
> > open source project that's been around for 10+ years, is actively
> > backed by two large tech companies, and still depends on Maven 3.5.x
> > in the continuous integration build. Bleah.
> >
> > I've been trying to upgrade it, but so far without success. 3.5 seems
> > baked pretty deeply into the Docker images or some other part of the
> > CI infrastructure that isn't easy to change. This project could well
> > be using Maven 3.5 for years to come. It's even possible we will
> > rewrite the whole codebase in C++ before we manage to get past Maven
> > 3.5. (I wish that was hyperbole. It's not.)
> >
> > I think we tend to overestimate how fast the installed base updates,
> > whether it's JDKs (I got a bug report from someone still using Java 7
> > yesterday), Maven versions, operating systems, or pretty much anything
> > else. None of us see more than a small fraction of the projects out
> > there. It is very easy to look at that small fraction and draw
> > conclusions that are falsified with a larger or different sample.
> >
> > I didn't know about this dependence on Maven 3.5 until I changed
> > projects in January. I haven't seen 3.3 lately, but I wouldn't be
> > surprised if it's still in use in multiple organizations, perhaps
> > because it's what's installed by default in some old Linux distro that
> > should also be retired but isn't. Absence of evidence is not evidence
> > of absence, including when considering which Maven versions developers
> > actively use.
> >
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Maven Resolver 2.0.0-alpha-10

[Mateusz Gajewski]

Tested Trino build with both JDK 22 and JDK 23-ea and maven build from
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/1460. The previous problem with binary
compatibility in one of the plugins we use is gone.

On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 1:20 PM Tamás Cservenák  wrote:

> Howdy,
>
> Note: This is an eighth (alpha-4 and alpha-9 was scrubbed) preview release
> of Resolver 2.0.0, that would allow any downstream consumers to try it out
> and adapt. The supplier is aligned with Maven 4.0.0-alpha-13. This resolver
> now implements "dynamic scopes" using newly introduced ScopeManager (as
> opposed to Resolver 1.x "cemented/wired in scopes"), making Resolver truly
> "scope agnostic" (as it is from now on just a matter of scope manager
> configuration). Also, a bug fix is there that restores backward binary
> compatibility.
>
> For configuration changes, see
>
> https://maven.apache.org/resolver-archives/resolver-LATEST/configuration.html
>
> IF the vote is successful, the staging site will NOT be moved to
> https://maven.apache.org/resolver/ but instead will be made reachable from
> https://maven.apache.org/resolver-archives/resolver-2.0.0-alpha-10/ only.
>
> The 1.9.18 is still the "latest stable" release of Maven Resolver.
>
> ===
>
> We solved 11 issues:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12320628=12354447
>
> There are still some issues in JIRA:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/MRESOLVER/issues
>
> Staging repository:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-2080/
>
> Source release SHA512:
>
> ba52c431d11adcfbbd2aac088c4ba0bb9c4f864f084047d45ed64fa806ee0625fadd6447cce6f39f05abd493c6f54cc2b6d70740efa6bc994ce694936f6c9e0d
>
> Staging site:
> https://maven.apache.org/resolver-archives/resolver-LATEST/
>
> Guide to testing staged releases:
> https://maven.apache.org/guides/development/guide-testing-releases.html
>
> Vote open for 72 hours.
>
> [ ] +1
> [ ] +0
> [ ] -1
>

Re: [VOTE] Require Java 17 for Maven 4

[Mateusz Gajewski]

+1 non binding as a user and occasional contributor

+1 for upgrade to JDK 21 and beyond in the near future


On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 8:09 PM Kévin Buntrock 
wrote:

> +1 as a modest contributor (and also encline to target v21)
>
> Le mer. 28 févr. 2024, 19:58, Manfred Moser  a
> écrit :
>
> > +100 (committer)
> >
> > For build and runtime and source code level.
> >
> > Also +100 for later upgrade to 21 ;-)
> >
> > On 2024-02-27 23:30, Benjamin Marwell wrote:
> > > Hi Maven Devs/Users/Committers and PMC members!
> > >
> > > After several discussions on the mailing lists, I would like to
> > > start a vote in favour of setting the minimal Java bytecode target
> > > of Maven-Core 4 to 17 and hence require Java 17 for Maven 4.
> > >
> > > This is a procedural majority vote [1*]:
> > > You can also vote with fractions and negative votes are not vetoes.
> > >
> > > Please also notice:
> > > * Maven 3 will stay at Java 8 no matter what.
> > > * We may raise Maven 4 to JDK 21 later if we feel like it (depending
> > > on the release date).
> > >This is not part of this vote.
> > > * The linked PR is not part of this vote (this is not a code vote).
> > >But you may take a look at it to understand the intended change.
> > >
> > > PR: https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/1430
> > >
> > > Maven-Parent will not be raised with this vote, the other PR is not
> > > part of this vote.
> > >
> > > Please refrain from starting discussions in this thread, but do
> > > include a reasoning on downvotes and feel free to start a new
> > > discussion on the mailing list, or comment on the existing ones.
> > >
> > > ---
> > >
> > > Vote open for 72 hours:
> > >
> > > [ ] +1 (set JDK17 min version for Maven 4.x)
> > > [ ] +0
> > > [ ] -1 (please include reasoning)
> > >
> > > ---
> > >
> > > - Ben
> > >
> > > [1*]: https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> > >
> > > -
> > > 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
> >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Java version for Maven

[Mateusz Gajewski]

memory, trying to use the last years figures it seems the dynamic
> > is
> > >> to follow the LTS with some lateness, ie current is 21 but people are
> > >> around 11-17. Like a sliding window.
> > >> Indeed the public polls I use - the ones you get on twitter from
> > intellij
> > >> or friends - for that conclusion are biased cause they hit more
> "geeks"
> > >> than standard work people but I don't have anything better right now
> in
> > >> terms of time serie.
> > >> Anyone has more comparative data about that?
> > >>
> > >> My proposal/thought was really to align on that dynamic - from the
> > latest
> > >> to a limit to cover ~>=65% of people - more than fixing some version
> in
> > >> stone.
> > >>
> > >> 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 jeu. 22 févr. 2024 à 10:17, Tamás Cservenák 
> a
> > >> écrit :
> > >>
> > >> > For start I "normalized" the Java strings to a form like "Java 8" or
> > >> "Java
> > >> > 17". This resulted in pretty much similar results as Romain PDF
> (Azul
> > >> > report).
> > >> >
> > >> > But then realized, we should consider this: Not every LTS existed at
> > the
> > >> > same time span (and we discuss the future here, not the past). Here
> is
> > >> some
> > >> > history I collected:
> > >> >
> > >> > - Java 8: Covers strings like "Java 1.8.0-25" (2014) to "Java
> > 1.8.0-401"
> > >> > (2024), that is 10 year span.
> > >> > - Java 11: Covers strings like "Java 11-ea" (2018) to "Java 11.0.22"
> > >> > (2024), that is a 6 year span.
> > >> > - Java 17: Covers strings like "Java 17-ea" (2021) to "Java 17.0.10"
> > >> > (2024), that is a 3 year span.
> > >> > - Java 21: Covers strings like "Java 21-ea" (2023) to "Java 21.0.2"
> > >> (2024),
> > >> > that is 1 year span.
> > >> >
> > >> > So, "normalized" and "weighted" (by lifespan) results are these:
> > >> > https://gist.github.com/cstamas/d2e5560f24ebe6a667834aa1f44d6fc1
> > >> >
> > >> > Weighted pie immediately shows which Java versions are "dead" (are
> > >> present,
> > >> > but are "sliding out") and which ones are "alive and kicking" (and
> > >> adoption
> > >> > is quite high).
> > >> >
> > >> > ---
> > >> >
> > >> > Refs:
> > >> > - https://www.java.com/releases/
> > >> > - https://openjdk.org/projects/jdk/11/
> > >> > - https://openjdk.org/projects/jdk/17/
> > >> > - https://openjdk.org/projects/jdk/21/
> > >> >
> > >> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 8:50 AM Tamás Cservenák <
> ta...@cservenak.net>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Howdy,
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Maven UA is created like this:
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> https://github.com/apache/maven/blob/master/maven-core/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/internal/aether/DefaultRepositorySystemSessionFactory.java#L555
> > >> > >
> > >> > > I was hoping also for a list of "Apache Maven ..." lines with
> > >> occurrence
> > >> > > count.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Now am unsure, for example if any other tool would use "Java X"
> > >> string in
> > >> > > its own UA, is that collected here?
> > >> > >
> > >> > > But let's cook with what we have :)
> > >> > >
> > >> > > T
> > >>

Re: [DISCUSS] Java version for Maven

[Mateusz Gajewski]

Do you have maven version and java version at the same time report? I
wonder if old maven is used with old JDK :)

On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 23:23 Brian Fox  wrote:

> Hi everyone. I haven't caught up on this thread but Tamas pinged me to get
> some usage data from Central. Attached are the Maven versions and JDK
> Version counts as reported by User Agent by distinct IP for the last 30
> days:
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 4:15 PM Hunter C Payne
>  wrote:
>
>>  I also want to stress that we care about what maven supports far more
>> than what it requires to build.  If it needs JDK 17 to build but the jars
>> are compliant with Java 8, that's fine with me.
>>
>> Hunter
>>
>> On Wednesday, February 21, 2024 at 12:47:33 PM PST, Romain
>> Manni-Bucau  wrote:
>>
>>  Hmm, not sure im ready for a 200M vanilla build tool even if it would
>> have
>> been ok legally...
>>
>> Le mer. 21 févr. 2024 à 21:41, Hunter C Payne
>>  a écrit :
>>
>> >  I might be wrong but I understood that shipping the JRE/JVM required a
>> > license and this is why most people don't ship with a JVM bundled.  But
>> > perhaps that has changed since the Oracle v Google/Alphabet trial.
>> > Hunter
>> >
>> >On Wednesday, February 21, 2024 at 12:00:54 PM PST, Benjamin Marwell
>> <
>> > bmarw...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >  FWIW, bazel changed its runtime requirement to Java 21.
>> > But they are shipping their own Java Runtime, so their users won't
>> notice.
>> > [1]
>> >
>> > I think they are the first build tool to do that.
>> >
>> > I say this as a FYI fact only, not implying anything.
>> > Make of it what you want.
>> >
>> > - Ben
>> >
>> > Am Di., 20. Feb. 2024 um 21:50 Uhr 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
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org