Re: [DISCUSS] Java version for Maven
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 On Thu, Feb 22, 2024, 08:03 Mateusz Gajewski < mateusz.gajew...@starburstdata.com> wrote: > 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
working on plugins system requirements history: volunteers?
as discussed on the "Java version for Maven" thread(s), enablers are key IMHO on plugins system requirements history, we started with https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MPLUGIN-400 we need to fill data on every Maven -project plugin: https://ci-maven.apache.org/job/Maven/job/maven-box/job/maven-dist-tool/job/master/site/dist-tool-prerequisites.html some tooling creation may be useful: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MPLUGIN-511 and even the configuration solution needs a small improvement: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MPLUGIN-510 There is a lot of work to do for a single contributor, but that can be split in small tasks, with good first issues to contribute to and it even has to be done in the future on every Maven plugin done in the wild Are there volunteers? We can do meeting on this, coordination, progress publications, team work, on something that remain quite focused and not very complex Regards, Hervé - 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
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
Re: [DISCUSS] Java version for Maven
I added a piece of information: OpenJDK releases are currently pointed to the vendor's binary address. For example, OpenJDK17 Latest Release (https://wiki.openjdk.org/display/JDKUpdates/JDK+17u), it points to https://github.com/adoptium/temurin17-binaries/releases/tag/jdk-17.0.10%2B7 Tamás Cservenák 于2024年2月22日周四 07:08写道： > > Thanks for sharing! > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 11:23 PM 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 > >>
Re: [DISCUSS] Java version for Maven
Thanks for sharing! On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 11:23 PM 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
Re: [DISCUSS] Java version for Maven
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 > > > > > java_version,version_count Java 1.8.0_382,1393438 Java 17.0.10,1001367 Java 17.0.9,570622 Java 21.0.2,529117 Java 21.0.1,283869 Java 11.0.22,278228 Java 17.0.7,268306 Java 17.0.8.1,259908 Java 11.0.21,240155 Java 17.0.2,180392 Java 17.0.8,145560 Java 17.0.6,139473 Java 1.8.0_292,138687 Java 1.8.0_392,121122 Java 1.8.0_402,117920 Java 19.0.2,110573 Java 17.0.5,108176 Java 1.8.0_342,98935 Java 11.0.16,93427 Java 11.0.10,85030 Java 21,84248 Java 20.0.2,80392 Java 17.0.1,77423 Java 11.0.14.1,66802 Java 11.0.11,63485 Java 11.0.19,59590 Java 20.0.1,58030 Java 18.0.2.1,57879 Java 11.0.20,55293 Java 1.8.0_202,51614
Re: [DISCUSS] Java version for Maven
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 > >
Re: [DISCUSS] Java version for Maven
Romain, 1) please do not talk nonsense (about dropping toolchains), as this thread is unrelated to it (and is not gonna happen) 2) your PDF... did you _read it_? Do you really expect volunteers to support companies WHO PAY for Java8 (to some third party, like Azul) to support their business for free? T On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 9:47 PM 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 > > > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] Java version for Maven
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 > >
Re: [DISCUSS] Java version for Maven
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 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
Re: [DISCUSS] Java version for Maven
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
Re: [DISCUSS] Java version for Maven
On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 7:40 AM Hervé Boutemy wrote: > > for sure, given the JDK almanach https://javaalmanac.io/jdk/ , we'll have to > update our plans https://maven.apache.org/developers/compatibility-plan.html > Not sure where this comes from. There's no one EOL date for any version. It depends on the vendor. The dates on that page I spot checked don't seem to match up with Oracle's announced dates, or that of any other vendor I looked at. -- 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
Re: [DISCUSS] Java version for Maven
Le mer. 21 févr. 2024 à 10:40, Xeno Amess a écrit :
> Hi.
> I use toolchain for multi-release-jars
> please don't drop it or provide another way for building multi release jars
>
I assume you mean compiler plugin, good news is that it is built-in and
named executable:
https://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-compiler-plugin/compile-mojo.html#executable
.
>
> From: Romain Manni-Bucau
> Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2024 3:48:43 PM
> To: Maven Developers List
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Java version for Maven
>
> Hi Hervé,
>
> +1000 on the philosophy!
>
> On the toolchain support I still fail to see why maven has toolchain
> anywhere in its code.
> Look it how it is used:
> * Tools are generally setup with env variables (JAVA_HOME, JAVA17_HOME,
> JAVAEA_HOME or alike)
> * Most plugins able to switch the JDK can switch the executable in their
> config and use by default ${env.JAVAxx_HOME} or whatever is desired which
> is the same indirection than toolchain but without the downside to setup a
> toolchain.xml. Then plugins can just use the binary (optionally PathExt on
> windows to get the extension) and be it, works really well.
>
> So overall I think we could drop toolchain which ultimately still misses a
> few parts to be complete in terms of env setup and make a shared-executable
> stronger - likely the future base of exec plugin even if not required.
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau | Blog
> | Github <
> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> LinkedIn | Book
> <
> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
> >
>
>
> Le mer. 21 févr. 2024 à 08:39, Hervé Boutemy a
> écrit :
>
> > for sure, given the JDK almanach https://javaalmanac.io/jdk/ , we'll
> have
> > to update our plans
> > https://maven.apache.org/developers/compatibility-plan.html
> >
> > the approach I'd love to promote is "what do we require to not hurt our
> > diversity of users when upgrading minimum prerequisites" (and I'm doing
> it
> > on my free time because I do care about the diversity of our community)
> > => let's work on the enablers
> >
> > Java prerequisite for Maven core is something, but everything will start
> > from plugins: that's why we started the plugins "requirement history"
> > see for example
> > https://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-shade-plugin/plugin-info.html
> >
> > for a summary on our own plugins, see last column of
> >
> >
> https://ci-maven.apache.org/job/Maven/job/maven-box/job/maven-dist-tool/job/master/site/dist-tool-prerequisites.html
> >
> > As you can see, not many plugins are not covered yet: who wants to work
> on
> > this?
> >
> >
> > Another good item cited is improving decoupling JDK of Maven from JDK to
> > compile and run tests.
> > IIRC, Guillaume prepared something about auto-importing available JDKs
> > from sdkman, which is a great idea: I don't know if this was closed done,
> > but I suppose other JDK switcher tools should be supported, I'm
> > particularly interested on knowing what Windows users need
> > One aspect that I know is not well done is that the MANIFEST in jar
> > describes JDK release from Maven core, not target: we should probably do
> > something
> > Another aspect is that toolchains support has to be enabled in pom.xml:
> it
> > would be useful for it to work from just CLI also.
> >
> > I'm sure there are other features that would be useful on this: who wants
> > to work on this?
> >
> >
> > The 2 previous enablers look sufficient to me: any other enabler someone
> > thinks about?
> >
> > And more importantly: who wants to work on it? plan, track progress,
> > document, explain?
> > we need community's help to prepare a smooth change: updating our plans
> > will be a consequence of this preparation
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Hervé
> >
> > Le mardi 20 février 2024, 21:49:03 CET Tamás Cservenák a écrit :
> > > 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
Re: [DISCUSS] Java version for Maven
Le 2024-02-21 à 10 h 40, Xeno Amess a écrit : I use toolchain for multi-release-jars please don't drop it or provide another way for building multi release jars I hope to make a proposal as a side-effect of a "Module Source Hierarchy" proposal, when we will reach that point (after control on module-path, then control on --add-exports option and a few others). Martin
Re: [DISCUSS] Java version for Maven
Hi.
I use toolchain for multi-release-jars
please don't drop it or provide another way for building multi release jars
From: Romain Manni-Bucau
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2024 3:48:43 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Java version for Maven
Hi Hervé,
+1000 on the philosophy!
On the toolchain support I still fail to see why maven has toolchain
anywhere in its code.
Look it how it is used:
* Tools are generally setup with env variables (JAVA_HOME, JAVA17_HOME,
JAVAEA_HOME or alike)
* Most plugins able to switch the JDK can switch the executable in their
config and use by default ${env.JAVAxx_HOME} or whatever is desired which
is the same indirection than toolchain but without the downside to setup a
toolchain.xml. Then plugins can just use the binary (optionally PathExt on
windows to get the extension) and be it, works really well.
So overall I think we could drop toolchain which ultimately still misses a
few parts to be complete in terms of env setup and make a shared-executable
stronger - likely the future base of exec plugin even if not required.
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau | Blog
| Github |
LinkedIn | Book
Le mer. 21 févr. 2024 à 08:39, Hervé Boutemy a
écrit :
> for sure, given the JDK almanach https://javaalmanac.io/jdk/ , we'll have
> to update our plans
> https://maven.apache.org/developers/compatibility-plan.html
>
> the approach I'd love to promote is "what do we require to not hurt our
> diversity of users when upgrading minimum prerequisites" (and I'm doing it
> on my free time because I do care about the diversity of our community)
> => let's work on the enablers
>
> Java prerequisite for Maven core is something, but everything will start
> from plugins: that's why we started the plugins "requirement history"
> see for example
> https://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-shade-plugin/plugin-info.html
>
> for a summary on our own plugins, see last column of
>
> https://ci-maven.apache.org/job/Maven/job/maven-box/job/maven-dist-tool/job/master/site/dist-tool-prerequisites.html
>
> As you can see, not many plugins are not covered yet: who wants to work on
> this?
>
>
> Another good item cited is improving decoupling JDK of Maven from JDK to
> compile and run tests.
> IIRC, Guillaume prepared something about auto-importing available JDKs
> from sdkman, which is a great idea: I don't know if this was closed done,
> but I suppose other JDK switcher tools should be supported, I'm
> particularly interested on knowing what Windows users need
> One aspect that I know is not well done is that the MANIFEST in jar
> describes JDK release from Maven core, not target: we should probably do
> something
> Another aspect is that toolchains support has to be enabled in pom.xml: it
> would be useful for it to work from just CLI also.
>
> I'm sure there are other features that would be useful on this: who wants
> to work on this?
>
>
> The 2 previous enablers look sufficient to me: any other enabler someone
> thinks about?
>
> And more importantly: who wants to work on it? plan, track progress,
> document, explain?
> we need community's help to prepare a smooth change: updating our plans
> will be a consequence of this preparation
>
> Regards,
>
> Hervé
>
> Le mardi 20 février 2024, 21:49:03 CET Tamás Cservenák a écrit :
> > 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
Re: [DISCUSS] Java version for Maven
Le mer. 21 févr. 2024 à 09:07, Hervé Boutemy a
écrit :
> ok, you want to contribute on decoupling JDK of Maven vs JDK of compiler
> and
> tests: perhaps we'll need to open a separate discussion to avoid hijacking
> the
> global plan, but let's have one roundtrip
>
Just to clarify: I don't want but for the rare cases you want to do it you
can already.
>
> scenario is: I use JDK 21 to run Maven, but I need JDK 8 to run my unit
> and
> integration tests
> of course, i have both JDKs on my machine
>
Assuming you have JAVA8_HOME setup you set
${env.JAVA8_HOME}/bin/java in surefire and be it.
>
> I see how I can manually configure toolchain.xml, modify pom.xml etc... to
> do
> that: it works, it's cumbersome
>
> How does "dropping toolchains" help?
>
Does not help, read it the opposite way, "toolchain does not help".
>
> Defining a common plan will probably require a dedicated discussion,
> perhaps
> some wiki pages, perhaps some meeting between people interested to have
> more
> live ideation before sharing proposal on the ML (which is necessary for
> wider
> community discussion)
>
Sure, my point was not to create a debate on that now, just that we should
probably not see toolchain as a solution cause it hurts more it helps.
>
> Le mercredi 21 février 2024, 08:48:43 CET Romain Manni-Bucau a écrit :
> > Hi Hervé,
> >
> > +1000 on the philosophy!
> >
> > On the toolchain support I still fail to see why maven has toolchain
> > anywhere in its code.
> > Look it how it is used:
> > * Tools are generally setup with env variables (JAVA_HOME, JAVA17_HOME,
> > JAVAEA_HOME or alike)
> > * Most plugins able to switch the JDK can switch the executable in their
> > config and use by default ${env.JAVAxx_HOME} or whatever is desired which
> > is the same indirection than toolchain but without the downside to setup
> a
> > toolchain.xml. Then plugins can just use the binary (optionally PathExt
> on
> > windows to get the extension) and be it, works really well.
> >
> > So overall I think we could drop toolchain which ultimately still misses
> a
> > few parts to be complete in terms of env setup and make a
> shared-executable
> > stronger - likely the future base of exec plugin even if not required.
> >
> > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > @rmannibucau | Blog
> > | Github <
> https://github.com/rmannibucau>
> > | LinkedIn | Book
> > <
> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
> > >
> >
> >
> > Le mer. 21 févr. 2024 à 08:39, Hervé Boutemy a
> >
> > écrit :
> > > for sure, given the JDK almanach https://javaalmanac.io/jdk/ , we'll
> have
> > > to update our plans
> > > https://maven.apache.org/developers/compatibility-plan.html
> > >
> > > the approach I'd love to promote is "what do we require to not hurt our
> > > diversity of users when upgrading minimum prerequisites" (and I'm
> doing it
> > > on my free time because I do care about the diversity of our community)
> > > => let's work on the enablers
> > >
> > > Java prerequisite for Maven core is something, but everything will
> start
> > > from plugins: that's why we started the plugins "requirement history"
> > > see for example
> > > https://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-shade-plugin/plugin-info.html
> > >
> > > for a summary on our own plugins, see last column of
> > >
> > >
> https://ci-maven.apache.org/job/Maven/job/maven-box/job/maven-dist-tool/jo
> > > b/master/site/dist-tool-prerequisites.html
> > >
> > > As you can see, not many plugins are not covered yet: who wants to
> work on
> > > this?
> > >
> > >
> > > Another good item cited is improving decoupling JDK of Maven from JDK
> to
> > > compile and run tests.
> > > IIRC, Guillaume prepared something about auto-importing available JDKs
> > > from sdkman, which is a great idea: I don't know if this was closed
> done,
> > > but I suppose other JDK switcher tools should be supported, I'm
> > > particularly interested on knowing what Windows users need
> > > One aspect that I know is not well done is that the MANIFEST in jar
> > > describes JDK release from Maven core, not target: we should probably
> do
> > > something
> > > Another aspect is that toolchains support has to be enabled in
> pom.xml: it
> > > would be useful for it to work from just CLI also.
> > >
> > > I'm sure there are other features that would be useful on this: who
> wants
> > > to work on this?
> > >
> > >
> > > The 2 previous enablers look sufficient to me: any other enabler
> someone
> > > thinks about?
> > >
> > > And more importantly: who wants to work on it? plan, track progress,
> > > document, explain?
> > > we need community's help to prepare a smooth change: updating our plans
> > > will be a consequence of this preparation
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Hervé
> > >
> > > Le mardi 20 février 2024, 21:49:03 CET Tamás Cservenák a
Re: [DISCUSS] Java version for Maven
ok, you want to contribute on decoupling JDK of Maven vs JDK of compiler and
tests: perhaps we'll need to open a separate discussion to avoid hijacking the
global plan, but let's have one roundtrip
scenario is: I use JDK 21 to run Maven, but I need JDK 8 to run my unit and
integration tests
of course, i have both JDKs on my machine
I see how I can manually configure toolchain.xml, modify pom.xml etc... to do
that: it works, it's cumbersome
How does "dropping toolchains" help?
Defining a common plan will probably require a dedicated discussion, perhaps
some wiki pages, perhaps some meeting between people interested to have more
live ideation before sharing proposal on the ML (which is necessary for wider
community discussion)
Le mercredi 21 février 2024, 08:48:43 CET Romain Manni-Bucau a écrit :
> Hi Hervé,
>
> +1000 on the philosophy!
>
> On the toolchain support I still fail to see why maven has toolchain
> anywhere in its code.
> Look it how it is used:
> * Tools are generally setup with env variables (JAVA_HOME, JAVA17_HOME,
> JAVAEA_HOME or alike)
> * Most plugins able to switch the JDK can switch the executable in their
> config and use by default ${env.JAVAxx_HOME} or whatever is desired which
> is the same indirection than toolchain but without the downside to setup a
> toolchain.xml. Then plugins can just use the binary (optionally PathExt on
> windows to get the extension) and be it, works really well.
>
> So overall I think we could drop toolchain which ultimately still misses a
> few parts to be complete in terms of env setup and make a shared-executable
> stronger - likely the future base of exec plugin even if not required.
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau | Blog
> | Github
> | LinkedIn | Book
> >
>
>
> Le mer. 21 févr. 2024 à 08:39, Hervé Boutemy a
>
> écrit :
> > for sure, given the JDK almanach https://javaalmanac.io/jdk/ , we'll have
> > to update our plans
> > https://maven.apache.org/developers/compatibility-plan.html
> >
> > the approach I'd love to promote is "what do we require to not hurt our
> > diversity of users when upgrading minimum prerequisites" (and I'm doing it
> > on my free time because I do care about the diversity of our community)
> > => let's work on the enablers
> >
> > Java prerequisite for Maven core is something, but everything will start
> > from plugins: that's why we started the plugins "requirement history"
> > see for example
> > https://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-shade-plugin/plugin-info.html
> >
> > for a summary on our own plugins, see last column of
> >
> > https://ci-maven.apache.org/job/Maven/job/maven-box/job/maven-dist-tool/jo
> > b/master/site/dist-tool-prerequisites.html
> >
> > As you can see, not many plugins are not covered yet: who wants to work on
> > this?
> >
> >
> > Another good item cited is improving decoupling JDK of Maven from JDK to
> > compile and run tests.
> > IIRC, Guillaume prepared something about auto-importing available JDKs
> > from sdkman, which is a great idea: I don't know if this was closed done,
> > but I suppose other JDK switcher tools should be supported, I'm
> > particularly interested on knowing what Windows users need
> > One aspect that I know is not well done is that the MANIFEST in jar
> > describes JDK release from Maven core, not target: we should probably do
> > something
> > Another aspect is that toolchains support has to be enabled in pom.xml: it
> > would be useful for it to work from just CLI also.
> >
> > I'm sure there are other features that would be useful on this: who wants
> > to work on this?
> >
> >
> > The 2 previous enablers look sufficient to me: any other enabler someone
> > thinks about?
> >
> > And more importantly: who wants to work on it? plan, track progress,
> > document, explain?
> > we need community's help to prepare a smooth change: updating our plans
> > will be a consequence of this preparation
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Hervé
> >
> > Le mardi 20 février 2024, 21:49:03 CET Tamás Cservenák a écrit :
> > > 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
Re: [DISCUSS] Java version for Maven
I just wanted to note that it is not true that no one is using
toolchains, maybe maven devs don't do it ;-)
e.g. github java setup action supports toolchains:
https://github.com/actions/setup-java
and it was added because many users asked for it / requested it.
For me toolchains become *less important* now that Java 9+ has the
--target option but now we are back at that maven (+its core plugins)
historically is/was stuck at Java 8 ... circle closed :-P
Am 21.02.24 um 08:48 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau:
Hi Hervé,
+1000 on the philosophy!
On the toolchain support I still fail to see why maven has toolchain
anywhere in its code.
Look it how it is used:
* Tools are generally setup with env variables (JAVA_HOME, JAVA17_HOME,
JAVAEA_HOME or alike)
* Most plugins able to switch the JDK can switch the executable in their
config and use by default ${env.JAVAxx_HOME} or whatever is desired which
is the same indirection than toolchain but without the downside to setup a
toolchain.xml. Then plugins can just use the binary (optionally PathExt on
windows to get the extension) and be it, works really well.
So overall I think we could drop toolchain which ultimately still misses a
few parts to be complete in terms of env setup and make a shared-executable
stronger - likely the future base of exec plugin even if not required.
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau | Blog
| Github |
LinkedIn | Book
Le mer. 21 févr. 2024 à 08:39, Hervé Boutemy a
écrit :
for sure, given the JDK almanach https://javaalmanac.io/jdk/ , we'll have
to update our plans
https://maven.apache.org/developers/compatibility-plan.html
the approach I'd love to promote is "what do we require to not hurt our
diversity of users when upgrading minimum prerequisites" (and I'm doing it
on my free time because I do care about the diversity of our community)
=> let's work on the enablers
Java prerequisite for Maven core is something, but everything will start
from plugins: that's why we started the plugins "requirement history"
see for example
https://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-shade-plugin/plugin-info.html
for a summary on our own plugins, see last column of
https://ci-maven.apache.org/job/Maven/job/maven-box/job/maven-dist-tool/job/master/site/dist-tool-prerequisites.html
As you can see, not many plugins are not covered yet: who wants to work on
this?
Another good item cited is improving decoupling JDK of Maven from JDK to
compile and run tests.
IIRC, Guillaume prepared something about auto-importing available JDKs
from sdkman, which is a great idea: I don't know if this was closed done,
but I suppose other JDK switcher tools should be supported, I'm
particularly interested on knowing what Windows users need
One aspect that I know is not well done is that the MANIFEST in jar
describes JDK release from Maven core, not target: we should probably do
something
Another aspect is that toolchains support has to be enabled in pom.xml: it
would be useful for it to work from just CLI also.
I'm sure there are other features that would be useful on this: who wants
to work on this?
The 2 previous enablers look sufficient to me: any other enabler someone
thinks about?
And more importantly: who wants to work on it? plan, track progress,
document, explain?
we need community's help to prepare a smooth change: updating our plans
will be a consequence of this preparation
Regards,
Hervé
Le mardi 20 février 2024, 21:49:03 CET Tamás Cservenák a écrit :
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,
