Technically, JDK8 is entirely undramatic for maven; I'm having a hard
time understanding why it should trigger any api changes or any other
"4.0" reasons.
I cannot make heads or tails of the supposed versioning policy, the
language is too convoluted for me or I'm just not smart enough.
If we are
As most of you probably know FOSDEM 2016 (the biggest,
100% free open source developer conference) is right
around the corner:
https://fosdem.org/2016/
We hope to have an ASF booth and we would love to see as
many ASF projects as possible present at various tracks
(AKA Developer rooms):
htt
+1 for Java 8 and the version bump to 4.x,.communicates the change more
clearly.
Regards
Mirko
--
Sent from my mobile
On Nov 30, 2015 23:44, "Stephen Connolly"
wrote:
> I have no issues if we want to call the next version 4.0.x rather than
> 3.4.x
>
> In my view there are some advantages to usi
Java 8 is fine by me, no matter what you label the next version, might as
well label is "4".
Gary
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Stephen Connolly <
stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Picking up from
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/maven-dev/201511.mbox/%3CCA%2BnPnMyjogmqRwe
I'd like to see Java 8 in maven core too. I don't particularly care if
it will be 3.4.x or 4.0.x.
--
Regards,
Igor
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015, at 05:52 PM, Mark Derricutt wrote:
> On 1 Dec 2015, at 11:44, Stephen Connolly wrote:
>
> > In my view there are some advantages to using the 4.0.x version nu
On 1 Dec 2015, at 11:44, Stephen Connolly wrote:
> In my view there are some advantages to using the 4.0.x version number as a
> Java 8 bump... namely that leaves the modelVersion 5.0 changes to Maven 5.0
Why that sounds like a cunning plan coming together!
+1
--
Mark Derricutt
http://ww
I have no issues if we want to call the next version 4.0.x rather than 3.4.x
In my view there are some advantages to using the 4.0.x version number as a
Java 8 bump... namely that leaves the modelVersion 5.0 changes to Maven 5.0
And let's face it, it will just be less confusing to users to say "T
Switching to java 1.8 ==> +1 from my side
But please use a major version increase, to clearly communicate that change.
Besides the already mentioned arguments from the core developers, are their
any numbers on the user base available?
I mean:
select 'java.version' from 'maven_users', where day(las
I agree that jumping to Java 8 would be unwise. I think we can wait until 4.x.
Don’t get me wrong, I’d prefer to use Java 8 and I do for almost everything
else but I don’t think there’s any dire rush.
> On Nov 30, 2015, at 2:00 PM, Michael Osipov wrote:
>
> Am 2015-11-30 um 22:18 schrieb Steph
As I spoke with Andreas and Kristian about my ideas now I am going to
forward this email to Maven mailinglist.
I can see the opportunity of Java 8 but I don't say that all artifacts must
be necessarily compiled with Java8. I can imaging few of them which make
sense.
This is the email and you can te
I think Maven 4.0 would be better suited for a JDK 8 switch. Now I know 4.0
would imply major new features, but I also think you could make JDK 8 the
major new feature of 4.0 -- and introduce your planned enhancements in the
minor point releases.
Cheers,
Paul
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 4:15 PM, Mich
Am 2015-11-29 um 16:27 schrieb Hervé BOUTEMY:
Now that Maven 3.3.9 is out and seems pretty stable, any objection to switch
to 3.4.0-SNAPSHOT?
3.3.9 has been released two weeks ago, do not expect people to be that
fast at updating, that would be naive.
I want to merge MNG-5878 new feature...
Am 2015-11-30 um 22:18 schrieb Stephen Connolly:
Picking up from
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/maven-dev/201511.mbox/%3CCA%2BnPnMyjogmqRweYbxLuULLB9ve2P6MPcQuH%2BPkxcNn-oN4GPg%40mail.gmail.com%3E
(and my follow up to that but archive.apache.org is being a tad slow)
Here is our policy:
Great, it's that time of year again :-).
I'm all for bumping the Java version, although I have no apparent need for
it. But Java 8 opens so many doors, as Stephen listed... And who knows how
long we'll live with 3.4.x.
In the end, usually users who are stuck with an old JDK for their code
either
Picking up from
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/maven-dev/201511.mbox/%3CCA%2BnPnMyjogmqRweYbxLuULLB9ve2P6MPcQuH%2BPkxcNn-oN4GPg%40mail.gmail.com%3E
(and my follow up to that but archive.apache.org is being a tad slow)
Here is our policy:
The development line of Maven core should require
OK, so here is our policy:
The development line of Maven core should require a minimum JRE version
> that is no older than 18 months after the end of Oracle's public updates
> for that JRE version at the time that the first version of the development
> line was released, but may require a higher m
Hi,
here my +1
Kind regards
Karl Heinz Marbaise
On 11/28/15 4:16 PM, Karl Heinz Marbaise wrote:
Hi,
We solved 9 issues:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12317922&version=12331499
There are several issue open:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%
GitHub user gslowikowski opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven-plugin-tools/pull/8
MPLUGIN-295 - upgrade Maven Invoker Plugin version to 1.10
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://github.com/gslowikowski/maven-plu
GitHub user gslowikowski opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven-plugin-tools/pull/7
MPLUGIN-294 - 'report' mojo should use 'extractors' configuration parameter
PR for [MPLUGIN-294](https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MPLUGIN-294)
issue.
You can merge this pull req
19 matches
Mail list logo