Re: Re: [DISCUSS] Maven 3.7.0

e with Maven 3.8.0 to Java 8 > next year?! > > Does that sound like a plan? I'd be happy with that. I'd also expect > an announcement on dev@, announce@ and users@. > > Michael > > > Gesendet: Dienstag, 29. Oktober 2019 um 13:49 Uhr > > Von: "Stephen Connolly&q

Re: Re: [DISCUSS] Maven 3.7.0

ounce@ and users@. Michael > Gesendet: Dienstag, 29. Oktober 2019 um 13:49 Uhr > Von: "Stephen Connolly" > An: "Maven Developers List" > Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Maven 3.7.0 > > On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 at 12:47, Stephen Connolly <> > stephen.alan.conno...@gmai

Re: Re: [DISCUSS] Maven 3.7.0

d be happy with that. I'd also expect > > > an announcement on dev@, announce@ and users@. > > > > > > Michael > > > > > > > Gesendet: Dienstag, 29. Oktober 2019 um 13:49 Uhr > > > > Von: "Stephen Connolly" > > > > An: "Maven D

Re: Re: [DISCUSS] Maven 3.7.0

8.0 to Java 8 > > next year?! > > > > Does that sound like a plan? I'd be happy with that. I'd also expect > > an announcement on dev@, announce@ and users@. > > > > Michael > > > > > Gesendet: Dienstag, 29. Oktober 2019 um 13:49 Uhr > > >

Re: Re: Re: [DISCUSS] Maven 3.7.0

019 um 14:21 Uhr > Von: "Stephen Connolly" > An: "Maven Developers List" > Betreff: Re: Re: [DISCUSS] Maven 3.7.0 > > Because maintaining Java 7 is a barrier to new contributors. It is tricky > enough to get Java 8 set up for some developers. Every version we s

Re: Re: [DISCUSS] Maven 3.7.0

hat sound like a plan? I'd be happy with that. I'd also expect > an announcement on dev@, announce@ and users@. > > Michael > > > Gesendet: Dienstag, 29. Oktober 2019 um 13:49 Uhr > > Von: "Stephen Connolly" > > An: "Maven Developers List" >

Re: Re: [DISCUSS] Maven 3.7.0

det: Dienstag, 29. Oktober 2019 um 13:49 Uhr > Von: "Stephen Connolly" > An: "Maven Developers List" > Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Maven 3.7.0 > > On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 at 12:47, Stephen Connolly < > stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > We alr

Re: [DISCUSS] Maven 3.7.0

On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 at 12:49, Stephen Connolly < stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 at 12:47, Stephen Connolly < > stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> We already have a version policy: >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/Version+number+policy

Re: [DISCUSS] Maven 3.7.0

On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 at 12:47, Stephen Connolly < stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: > We already have a version policy: > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/Version+number+policy > (while that page says draft, the proposal was on-list in 2014 and just converted into a wiki

Re: [DISCUSS] Maven 3.7.0

We already have a version policy: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/Version+number+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

Re: [DISCUSS] Maven 3.7.0

Stephen, we are in loop. Of course I know these technical things. But I am saying, and I am not alone (Michael Osipov too), that I agree with sources 1.8, but there must be1. the Vote with milestones regarding Maven and another Vote regarding plugins, and 2. written list of pros/cons regarding J8

Re: [DISCUSS] Maven 3.7.0

You cannot have Java 8 sources produce Java 7 bytecode with the Java 8's javac. -target must be >= -source So to say: > So I vote -1 for J8 bytecode, and I vote +1 for J8 source code! Is not possible, you'll get something like: $ javac Test -source 1.8 -target 1.7 javac: source release 1.8

Re: [DISCUSS] Maven 3.7.0

Stephen, what issue with current toolchain you mean? On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 11:11 AM Stephen Connolly < stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 at 08:02, Tibor Digana wrote: > > > Robert, I saw the code. The class has a method which returns Lambda > > function. The whole

Re: [DISCUSS] Maven 3.7.0

On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 at 08:02, Tibor Digana wrote: > Robert, I saw the code. The class has a method which returns Lambda > function. The whole class was designed with OOP. The OOP is a good thing > which you should follow and follow this approach and not to return the > labda function. Basically

Re: [DISCUSS] Maven 3.7.0

@Tibor: the design comes from a time functional programming was not mainstream and quite cumbersome with java, let's embrace current way of doing and move forward otherwise we can go to attic ;). Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau | Blog

Re: [DISCUSS] Maven 3.7.0

Robert, I saw the code. The class has a method which returns Lambda function. The whole class was designed with OOP. The OOP is a good thing which you should follow and follow this approach and not to return the labda function. Basically it is a precedense created in the PR saying that now J8 has

Re: [DISCUSS] Maven 3.7.0

The outcome is quite clear to me. There no clear 'No' to add this build/consumer feature into 3.7.0, so we'll add it which implies we must move to Java 8 due to new APIs with Java 8 class signatures. But first we need to deliver a 3.6.3 regression release. Robert On 29-10-2019 05:53:25,

Re: [DISCUSS] Maven 3.7.0

+1, the risk is more or less 0 since we can still use branches for potential fixes for "old" projects using frozen java and maven versions anyway Guess we can even be very precautionous doing 1. an upgrade to bytecode version without any code change (to change the major version in bytecode), 2. a

Re: [DISCUSS] Maven 3.7.0

so what is the status of this? will we discuss in 2025 about being able to use java 8 apis or do we have to wait 2030? Sorry to be sarcastic but not moving forward it's certainly a reason why we do not have more people participating in the project It is so frustrating to be stuck with old

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

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

Re: [DISCUSS] Maven 3.7.0

Totally support java 8. There is nothing to discuss here. Not sure everyone realizes that, but it's 2019 already. Regarding the new features: 1) as you mentioned the new model, i think it will be good to introduce simple build graph balancing hints in the model. It is possible to examine

Re: [DISCUSS] Maven 3.7.0

On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 at 12:39, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote: > On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 2:22 PM Stephen Connolly < > stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 at 12:03, Michael Osipov wrote: > > > I also won't participate in any further in-depth discussion > > > for 3.7.0 for

Re: [DISCUSS] Maven 3.7.0

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 2:22 PM Stephen Connolly < stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 at 12:03, Michael Osipov wrote: > > > Am 2019-09-28 um 14:05 schrieb Robert Scholte: > > > Hi, > > > > > > TLDR; introduce maven.experimental.buildconsumer and push Java > > >

Re: [DISCUSS] Maven 3.7.0

On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 at 12:03, Michael Osipov wrote: > Am 2019-09-28 um 14:05 schrieb Robert Scholte: > > 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

Re: [DISCUSS] Maven 3.7.0

On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 at 09:48, Robert Scholte wrote: > Sorry Tibor, but I'm not going to do this. > > We've said that simply changing source/target(/release) to 1.8 is not a > good reason to require Java 8. > Now with the changes as mentioned in this thread (new APIs based on Java > Functions) we

Re: [DISCUSS] Maven 3.7.0

Am 2019-09-28 um 14:05 schrieb Robert Scholte: 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

Re: [DISCUSS] Maven 3.7.0

Sorry Tibor, but I'm not going to do this. We've said that simply changing source/target(/release) to 1.8 is not a good reason to require Java 8. Now with the changes as mentioned in this thread (new APIs based on Java Functions) we finally have this good reason. I'm not going to explain

Re: [DISCUSS] Maven 3.7.0

On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 5:47 PM Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > Le 03/10/2019 à 16:54, Karl Heinz Marbaise a écrit : > > > Hm.. first Java 7 is out for eight years now (2011) (End of live) and > > has no public updates for security/bug fixes etc. since 2015 > > RedHat still maintains OpenJDK 7 until June

Re: [DISCUSS] Maven 3.7.0

Le jeu. 3 oct. 2019 à 21:23, Tibor Digana a écrit : > >> any previous jdk is not maintained > > Romain I was not talking about yes/no J8. > I was talking about J8 sources. > Not about dead J7 and Oracle support of J7. > > Not sure if the Maven devs would be able to use J8. Important is "how". >

Re: [DISCUSS] Maven 3.7.0

>> any previous jdk is not maintained Romain I was not talking about yes/no J8. I was talking about J8 sources. Not about dead J7 and Oracle support of J7. Not sure if the Maven devs would be able to use J8. Important is "how". Therefore the Wiki should help them "how". >> We can still get

Re: [DISCUSS] Maven 3.7.0

Le jeu. 3 oct. 2019 à 20:22, Tibor Digana a écrit : > The topic related to TLS is only related to runtime, means JDK, which is > under the control of the particular user or CI. > I guess the user can easily find the answer: > >

Re: [DISCUSS] Maven 3.7.0

The topic related to TLS is only related to runtime, means JDK, which is under the control of the particular user or CI. I guess the user can easily find the answer: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/50824789/why-am-i-getting-received-fatal-alert-protocol-version-or-peer-not-authentic The thing

Re: [DISCUSS] Maven 3.7.0

On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 at 16:49, Karl Heinz Marbaise wrote: > Hi, > > On 03.10.19 17:03, Tibor Digana wrote: > > This is not very serious discussion since we saw users on our mailing > > list who said that he is using Java 1.6 compiler and JDK7 in Maven. > > Would that change anything? Using JDK 8

Re: [DISCUSS] Maven 3.7.0

Hi, On 03.10.19 17:03, Tibor Digana wrote: This is not very serious discussion since we saw users on our mailing list who said that he is using Java 1.6 compiler and JDK7 in Maven. Would that change anything? Using JDK 8 for Maven and using JDK 6 for compiling/test... Serious discussion

Re: [DISCUSS] Maven 3.7.0

Le 03/10/2019 à 16:54, Karl Heinz Marbaise a écrit : > Hm.. first Java 7 is out for eight years now (2011) (End of live) and > has no public updates for security/bug fixes etc. since 2015 RedHat still maintains OpenJDK 7 until June 2020 [1]. Emmanuel Bourg [1]

Re: [DISCUSS] Maven 3.7.0

Java 8 as a min is fine by me FWIW. Gary On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 11:07 AM Tibor Digana wrote: > Sorry my important typo " I would have a problem with Java 1.8 ". > Correction " I would NOT have a problem with Java 1.8 " > > On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 5:03 PM Tibor Digana > wrote: > > > This is not

Re: [DISCUSS] Maven 3.7.0

Sorry my important typo " I would have a problem with Java 1.8 ". Correction " I would NOT have a problem with Java 1.8 " On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 5:03 PM Tibor Digana wrote: > This is not very serious discussion since we saw users on our mailing list > who said that he is using Java 1.6 compiler

Re: [DISCUSS] Maven 3.7.0

This is not very serious discussion since we saw users on our mailing list who said that he is using Java 1.6 compiler and JDK7 in Maven. Serious discussion would uncover pros/cons and impact analysis. I would have a problem with Java 1.8 in target and source code but I have problem that we

Re: [DISCUSS] Maven 3.7.0

Hi, On 03.10.19 14:36, 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

Re: [DISCUSS] Maven 3.7.0

On 03.10.19 14:15, 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

Re: [DISCUSS] Maven 3.7.0

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

Re: [DISCUSS] Maven 3.7.0

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

Re: [DISCUSS] Maven 3.7.0

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.

Re: [DISCUSS] Maven 3.7.0

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

Re: [DISCUSS] Maven 3.7.0

+1 on Java 8 requirement for Maven runtime (note this still lets you compile with Java 7 if you are prepared to use toolchains... the complexity of using toolchains is an argument for improving/revisiting toolchains) +1 on getting the place for filtering the pom.xml to produce the consumer

Re: [DISCUSS] Maven 3.7.0

https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/286 On Tue, 01 Oct 2019 13:49:25 +0200, Enrico Olivelli wrote: Robert, Can you create a PR? Enrico Il mar 1 ott 2019, 07:19 Sylwester Lachiewicz ha scritto: +1 for Java 8 - let's kill 7 faster ;-)) Sylwester wt., 1 paź 2019, 02:41 użytkownik

Re: [DISCUSS] Maven 3.7.0

Robert, Can you create a PR? Enrico Il mar 1 ott 2019, 07:19 Sylwester Lachiewicz ha scritto: > +1 for Java 8 - let's kill 7 faster ;-)) > > Sylwester > > wt., 1 paź 2019, 02:41 użytkownik Olivier Lamy napisał: > > > +1 for Java 8 > > it's time now and we will probably having more

Re: [DISCUSS] Maven 3.7.0

+1 for Java 8 - let's kill 7 faster ;-)) Sylwester wt., 1 paź 2019, 02:41 użytkownik Olivier Lamy napisał: > +1 for Java 8 > it's time now and we will probably having more contributions as young/cool > kids prefer using modern tools > Yup the world is not only made with Old Grumpy grand dad

Re: [DISCUSS] Maven 3.7.0

+1 for Java 8 it's time now and we will probably having more contributions as young/cool kids prefer using modern tools Yup the world is not only made with Old Grumpy grand dad working only with Java 5 :P ) On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 at 04:14, Robert Scholte wrote: > The versions upgrades of plugins

Re: [DISCUSS] Maven 3.7.0

Been using Maven since spring 2005, so really happy with Maven... I work on legacy applications so I still build on Java 6 & 7 weekly/monthly, but mainly on Java 8 with so experimenting with Java 11. My feedback and input would be; 1) Drop Pre Java 8 support It would hurt my as I use it for

Re: [DISCUSS] Maven 3.7.0

+1 for java 8 Java 7 dev will likely stick to already published versions since the ecosystem is already EOL anyway so no reason to not make maven java 8 based IMHO Le lun. 30 sept. 2019 à 22:16, Mickael Istria a écrit : > On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 5:37 PM Mickael Istria wrote: > > > I believe

Re: [DISCUSS] Maven 3.7.0

On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 5:37 PM Mickael Istria wrote: > I believe this reveals that some of the important Tycho tests are not > performed against latest Maven snapshots. > After a fix, the failures with polyglot build using more recent version of Maven are now surfacing. Too bad we didn't spot

Re: [DISCUSS] Maven 3.7.0

Then why you are setting target to 1.8 without the code? As said: there *are* Java 8 specific code changes: https://github.com/apache/maven/compare/MNG-6656?expand=1#diff-becf9d362b95e48f9ca0f2ab76ca9f8fR54 (and every other method in this class)

Re: [DISCUSS] Maven 3.7.0

Then why you are setting target to 1.8 without the code? It does not make sense to set it without adapting the code. You know what it looks like? Many people will hate me when I say this in public. It looks like a lobby. And there can be anything in background, organizations, money flow,

Re: [DISCUSS] Maven 3.7.0

Tibor Il lun 30 set 2019, 20:30 Tibor Digana ha scritto: > Robert, you'r really right, there is only 3.7.0-candidate > < > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project+%3D+MNG+AND+fixVersion+%3D+3.7.0-candidate > > > version in Jira, see > >

Re: [DISCUSS] Maven 3.7.0

Robert, you'r really right, there is only 3.7.0-candidate version in Jira, see https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/MNG?selectedItem=com.atlassian.jira.jira-projects-plugin:release-page So this means

Re: [DISCUSS] Maven 3.7.0

The versions upgrades of plugins are part of another topic, which are indeed 3.7.0 candidates. As said, the Java 8 update is not just about internal code improvements or changes. Maven will expose new APIs/SPIs that contain Java 8 Functions, so it must be seen as a requirement to implement

Re: [DISCUSS] Maven 3.7.0

On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 16:53:00 +0200, Enrico Olivelli wrote: Robert, Il sab 28 set 2019, 14:04 Robert Scholte ha scritto: 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

Re: [DISCUSS] Maven 3.7.0

Hi Mickael, On 28.09.19 17:37, Mickael Istria wrote: On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 5:35 PM Karl Heinz Marbaise wrote: 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. Feedback of

Re: [DISCUSS] Maven 3.7.0

did someone confirm that it is related to Plexus to Tycho switch in MNG-6685? Regards, Hervé Le samedi 28 septembre 2019, 16:42:27 CEST Robert Scholte a écrit : > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-6765 > > I guess it is more about the pom-less part than the tycho-part. > > On Sat, 28

Re: [DISCUSS] Maven 3.7.0

On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 5:35 PM Karl Heinz Marbaise wrote: > > > 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. > > Feedback of Michael Istria states different? Or do I miss a

Re: [DISCUSS] Maven 3.7.0

Hi, On 28.09.19 14:05, 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.

Re: [DISCUSS] Maven 3.7.0

Robert, Il sab 28 set 2019, 14:04 Robert Scholte ha scritto: > 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

Re: [DISCUSS] Maven 3.7.0

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-6765 I guess it is more about the pom-less part than the tycho-part. On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 15:55:28 +0200, Mickael Istria wrote: On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 2:04 PM Robert Scholte wrote: The only one might be tricky is the issue related to Tycho.

Re: [DISCUSS] Maven 3.7.0

On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 2:04 PM Robert Scholte wrote: > The only one might be tricky is the issue related to Tycho. What issue is this? Tycho integration-tests are being run against Maven snapshots daily and no issue was spot nor report on Tycho side as far as I know.

Re: [DISCUSS] Maven 3.7.0

Hello guys, For the user community these two issues are important: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-6169 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-6548 The Tycho project is the user as well. The J8 is internal code improvement/change => lower priority than the user's priority => release

Re: [DISCUSS] Maven 3.7.0

I would say that fixing the Tycho issue comes first. Gary 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 >