Re: last review of Reproducible Builds proposal
Le mardi 8 octobre 2019, 23:42:55 CEST Mark Derricutt a écrit : > On 6 Oct 2019, at 9:14, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote: > > if anybody cares about the exact value: but > > who really looks at the timestamp of entries in release zips/jars/tar.gz > > honestly? > > I've actually done so in the past trying to find differences between two > versions of a jar for repair reasons. > > VERY infrequent tho - if you're wanting to generate a delta-patch between > two jars/zips then I guess it might also be handy (altho you might be > better off going direct for checksumdifferences there ). FYI, when you try to know the difference between 2 archives, the ideal tool is diffoscope [1]: it has been done exactly for that [1] https://diffoscope.org/ > > > --- > "The ease with which a change can be implemented has no relevance at all to > whether it is the right change for the (Java) Platform for all time." > Mark Reinhold. > > Mark Derricutt > http://www.theoryinpractice.net > http://www.chaliceofblood.net > http://plus.google.com/+MarkDerricutt > http://twitter.com/talios > http://facebook.com/mderricutt - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
aspectj-maven-plugin maintenance status
Given the recent flatten maintenance thread seems to of gotten some traction, I thought I'd mention this plugin, which is causing issues for migration to Java 11. There have been pull requests resolving the issues for over a year, but nothing has been merged, in spite of numerous requests in various forms. Any chance anyone on this list can help with this. Best regards, Peter
Re: Surefire 3.0.0-M4 release?
+1 Enrico Il gio 10 ott 2019, 06:40 Romain Manni-Bucau ha scritto: > Anything user facing preventing to let it be a final? > > Anyway +1 to let fixes get out. > > Le jeu. 10 oct. 2019 à 02:53, Olivier Lamy a écrit : > > > Hi, > > It's now almost 10 months since last and around 30 issues fixed. > > Maybe time for a new release? > > Moving issues still open to 3.0.0-M5? > > > > cheers > > -- > > Olivier Lamy > > http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy > > >
Re: Surefire 3.0.0-M4 release?
Anything user facing preventing to let it be a final? Anyway +1 to let fixes get out. Le jeu. 10 oct. 2019 à 02:53, Olivier Lamy a écrit : > Hi, > It's now almost 10 months since last and around 30 issues fixed. > Maybe time for a new release? > Moving issues still open to 3.0.0-M5? > > cheers > -- > Olivier Lamy > http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy >
Surefire 3.0.0-M4 release?
Hi, It's now almost 10 months since last and around 30 issues fixed. Maybe time for a new release? Moving issues still open to 3.0.0-M5? cheers -- Olivier Lamy http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
Re: [DISCUSS] Maven 3.7.0
I have to fully agree on Michael Osipov. This discussion is contraproductive from the time perspective. He explained the situation in Maven very clearly that we have over 1800 bugs and here we are talking about javac compiler version which does not fix these bugs. We know that our community is quite big but we also know that we have only few several developers who regularily provides fixes for the bug and they do it for free! So my advice is to leave these talks alone about technology lobby (seen on ML from outside as well) and rather concentrate on the bug. We have seen that the users/contributors handled performance issues and fixed them which means that these contributors got very good proficiency level! On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 7:56 PM Alexander Ashitkin wrote: > Totally disagree on the point. Writing java7 code after 8 makes you feel > suffering - because instead of expressive stream based operations and > lambdas you write pointless iterators and copy collections. > It is purely subjective opinion that lambdas make code less readable - at > least there is an absolutely opposite opinion > > Thank you > Aleks > > On 2019/10/03 12:47:35, Paul Hammant wrote: > > Who codes for 18 months before discovering that qa/prod are not > compatible, > > anymore? Especially if Google ship a use-this-Pom starter. > > > > On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 1:44 PM Elliotte Rusty Harold > > > wrote: > > > > > Theoretically that would work. In practice though, every project I've > > > seen convert to Java 8 rapidly starts adding lambdas that make the > > > code more obfuscated for no good reason and soon introduces hard > > > dependencies on Java 8, intentionally or otherwise. At a bare minimum, > > > a CI environment that runs Java 7 is required. > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 8:25 AM Paul Hammant wrote: > > > > > > > > Would jdk 8 for maven itself and a target of 7 for the compiler > (etc) for > > > > maven-using projects be ok? > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 1:15 PM Elliotte Rusty Harold < > elh...@ibiblio.org > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Strong -1 on Java 8 as the minimum version. Google Cloud Platform > has > > > > > lots of products and customers that still require Java 7. If Maven > > > > > requires Java 8, we'd have to stick to the latest of whichever > release > > > > > does support Java 7 for at least a year and I'm guessing longer. > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 8:04 AM Robert Scholte < > rfscho...@apache.org> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > TLDR; introduce maven.experimental.buildconsumer and push Java > > > > > requirement > > > > > > to Java 8 > > > > > > > > > > > > now that Maven 3.6.2 is out for a couple of weeks, it seems like > we > > > > > didn't > > > > > > face real regressions. > > > > > > The only one might be tricky is the issue related to Tycho. > > > > > > > > > > > > However, I think we're ready to push Maven to the next level. > > > > > > > > > > > > For those actively reading this list, they should recognize the > need > > > for > > > > > > splitting up the pom as it is on the local system versus the pom > > > being > > > > > > uploaded. Once we truly control this mechanism we can think of > > > > > > improvements on model 5.0.0 and new fileformats. > > > > > > > > > > > > I've created and implemented MNG-6656[1]. It also contains a zip > > > with an > > > > > > example (original, patched, README) to understand what's > happening. > > > > > > > > > > > > In order to make this successful, we need IDEs and CI Servers to > > > > > > understand and support these changes. The likely need to > implement > > > one of > > > > > > the interfaces[2]. > > > > > > The new interface uses Java8 Functions (and especially > > > SAXEventFactory is > > > > > > way easier to read+maintain with Java 8). I've tried to keep > Maven > > > Java 7 > > > > > > compatible, but that was too hard to do. > > > > > > So I'd like to use this opportunity to move Maven forward and > start > > > > > > requiring Java 8. > > > > > > > > > > > > There are some other improvements I'd like to add (those messages > > > will > > > > > > follow), so this will imply that it will take some time before > we do > > > a > > > > > new > > > > > > release. > > > > > > > > > > > > WDTY, > > > > > > Robert > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-6656 > > > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/maven/compare/MNG-6656?expand=1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Elliotte Rusty Harold > > > > > elh...@ibiblio.org > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > > > > > For additional
Re: [DISCUSS] Maven 3.7.0
Totally disagree on the point. Writing java7 code after 8 makes you feel suffering - because instead of expressive stream based operations and lambdas you write pointless iterators and copy collections. It is purely subjective opinion that lambdas make code less readable - at least there is an absolutely opposite opinion Thank you Aleks On 2019/10/03 12:47:35, Paul Hammant wrote: > Who codes for 18 months before discovering that qa/prod are not compatible, > anymore? Especially if Google ship a use-this-Pom starter. > > On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 1:44 PM Elliotte Rusty Harold > wrote: > > > Theoretically that would work. In practice though, every project I've > > seen convert to Java 8 rapidly starts adding lambdas that make the > > code more obfuscated for no good reason and soon introduces hard > > dependencies on Java 8, intentionally or otherwise. At a bare minimum, > > a CI environment that runs Java 7 is required. > > > > On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 8:25 AM Paul Hammant wrote: > > > > > > Would jdk 8 for maven itself and a target of 7 for the compiler (etc) for > > > maven-using projects be ok? > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 1:15 PM Elliotte Rusty Harold > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Strong -1 on Java 8 as the minimum version. Google Cloud Platform has > > > > lots of products and customers that still require Java 7. If Maven > > > > requires Java 8, we'd have to stick to the latest of whichever release > > > > does support Java 7 for at least a year and I'm guessing longer. > > > > > > > > On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 8:04 AM Robert Scholte > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > TLDR; introduce maven.experimental.buildconsumer and push Java > > > > requirement > > > > > to Java 8 > > > > > > > > > > now that Maven 3.6.2 is out for a couple of weeks, it seems like we > > > > didn't > > > > > face real regressions. > > > > > The only one might be tricky is the issue related to Tycho. > > > > > > > > > > However, I think we're ready to push Maven to the next level. > > > > > > > > > > For those actively reading this list, they should recognize the need > > for > > > > > splitting up the pom as it is on the local system versus the pom > > being > > > > > uploaded. Once we truly control this mechanism we can think of > > > > > improvements on model 5.0.0 and new fileformats. > > > > > > > > > > I've created and implemented MNG-6656[1]. It also contains a zip > > with an > > > > > example (original, patched, README) to understand what's happening. > > > > > > > > > > In order to make this successful, we need IDEs and CI Servers to > > > > > understand and support these changes. The likely need to implement > > one of > > > > > the interfaces[2]. > > > > > The new interface uses Java8 Functions (and especially > > SAXEventFactory is > > > > > way easier to read+maintain with Java 8). I've tried to keep Maven > > Java 7 > > > > > compatible, but that was too hard to do. > > > > > So I'd like to use this opportunity to move Maven forward and start > > > > > requiring Java 8. > > > > > > > > > > There are some other improvements I'd like to add (those messages > > will > > > > > follow), so this will imply that it will take some time before we do > > a > > > > new > > > > > release. > > > > > > > > > > WDTY, > > > > > Robert > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-6656 > > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/maven/compare/MNG-6656?expand=1 > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Elliotte Rusty Harold > > > > elh...@ibiblio.org > > > > > > > > - > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Elliotte Rusty Harold > > elh...@ibiblio.org > > > > - > > 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
