Hello Herve, I would like to discuss this personally with you, Olivier, Tamas and Michaelo. 1. we were discussing the Issue opened by customer on GH. There I wrote that I will make an analysis and everybody should wait because we do not know the fix yet. There we needed to make the analysis, I did it, and I provided the workaround for the customer so that we don't need to have the real fix so fast. 2. I opened a discussion where exactly these things needed to be shown. After 5 days Olivier pushed a PR with unnecessarily huge changes and without the outcome of the analysis and without the proposed solution.
This is my problem: We should not proactively commit something, otherwise we do not know what we are doing without having the analysis and a proposed solution. Sorry but I cannot accept this style of development when we ignore 1. Analysis and 2. Proposed solution on the Mailing list. How it would look like if Maven pushed changes ignoring the others. It would be a mess. This happened in 2016 with version 3.4.0 when the development wasn't coordinated and we found out the problem after months when the build process crashed, we reverted the master, we recalled and re-evaluated each commit and finally we lost a lot of time. Surefire is in similar situation with Olivier, because he is pushing some code straight ahead and he is ignoring you. He does not care that we need to clarify something here. Instead I can see tons of changed files instead of one class/file. I know it because I was author of it. We need to be better coordinated, and as I spoke with Tamas at Apero, it's not only Surefire but the Maven itself needs to be coordinated and obviously we have this problem. Each sub-project is different but its there and it is special with Olivier who has his ... plans ignoring you even if you asked him for cooperation, but no, he does not care that you exits. And the worst is the code because it goes to a disaster, JUnit5 is unstable, Reporters have HACKS and I have to make an investment to clarify over and over again why it's bad and how to fix it but the guy does not want to understand it and instead he permanently says "delete" "delete" and "delete" - it's like a business and not the Open source. I don't remember this status before, because it was perfect few years ago but today the cooperation with Olivier does not work. I remember him in Jenkins when he helped me but today, no, absolutely no way, only his way his line really like a business, it really smells by a business. I still have this feeling because it's not normal whats happening. I don't remember this before. It's not good! I m really frustrated from this cooperation. I can give you my knowledge, my power, my energy, my experiences, my everything, but it is not applicable somehow because there's no reaction on the other side. Cheers Tibor On Mon, Feb 16, 2026 at 12:33 AM Hervé Boutemy <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm not going in technical details: I'm not in Surefire > but reverting a reviewed PR without any review is not an option > > @Tibor > please revert then discuss > not the opposite > > thanks > > Hervé > > > Le dimanche 15 février 2026, 12:01:07 CET Romain Manni-Bucau a écrit : > > Hi Tibor, > > > > there is no way you violate the community process like that. > > Olivier did address most of the issues, he did pass the review process > and > > while discussion was still ongoing there is no consensus on a revert nor > > discusion so think we should revert the revert, finish the discussion if > > needed and move forward. > > > > Side note: it is ok to be alone against the community in idea, it is > wrong > > to be in acts. > > > > Just my 2cts but this can't be right @asf. > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > > @rmannibucau <https://x.com/rmannibucau> | .NET Blog > > <https://dotnetbirdie.github.io/> | Blog <https://rmannibucau.github.io/> > | > > Old Blog <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github > > <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn > > <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book > > < > https://www.packtpub.com/en-us/product/java-ee-8-high-performance-978178847 > > 3064> Javaccino founder (Java/.NET service - contact via linkedin) > > > > Le dim. 15 févr. 2026 à 04:02, Olivier Lamy <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > Hi, > > > > > > I was surprised to see these changes reverted, as they were addressing > > > issues affecting a significant number of Windows users. > > > The PRs in question resolved problems for users running on Windows > > > without WMIC but using Java 9+. They also aimed to improve the current > > > behaviour and incorporate points that had previously been raised > > > during review. > > > The compatibility concern mentioned appears to affect a relatively > > > narrow subset of users: Java 8 users who rely on WMIC without > > > PowerShell installed. > > > While it is important to consider such edge cases, there may be ways > > > to mitigate the impact without fully reverting improvements that > > > benefit a broader group of users. > > > For users in that situation, possible options include: > > > - remaining on Surefire 3.5.4 (they are already using old Java 8 and > > > old Windows version) > > > - upgrading to at least Java 9 > > > - installing PowerShell > > > > > > I am also concerned about the process/community aspect. These PRs had > > > received few community approvals, which indicated consensus to move > > > forward. > > > Reverting them without prior discussion on the mailing list or in the > > > PR bypasses that consensus-building process. > > > I would therefore suggest reverting those reverts as they are > > > affecting changes that have already been approved. > > > Regards > > > Olivier > > > > > > On Sun, 15 Feb 2026 at 10:07, Tibor Digaňa <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > We started this discussion 8 days ago, it is still pending. > > > > > > > > Sylwester L. asked me to open the discussion here 8 days ago, so I > did. > > > > > > We > > > > > > > still have not made any consensus, and Olivier proactively pushed his > > > > > > work > > > > > > > into master, I reverted his change because we still have not finished > > > > the > > > > analysis and a proposal. Due to there are two issues and not one, > both > > > > > > must > > > > > > > be fixed altogether and everybody has to understand what we are > doing, > > > > > > why > > > > > > > and how. > > > > > > > > @Olivier Lamy, I require from you to inform me about everything what > you > > > > are doing in this project and you will invite me in every PR you > > > > participate on and this way we will discuss together and we we > > > > > > collaborate > > > > > > > together. > > > > > > So there is nothing such a single person to validate changes. > > > We are a developer community here. PRs are public and can be validated > > > by any community member. > > > > > > > There are several technical notices on my side: > > > > > > > > 1. We have also customers with old Windows systems: Windows XP, > Windows > > > > Server. > > > > 2. It is not true that the PowerShell is the only solution because > not > > > > everybody wants to install it nor installed it yet. > > > > 3. It is true that using OS-naturally native commands we are > > > > > > significantly > > > > > > > mitigating the risk (the risk that some native binary is not > > > > recognized). > > > > 4. It is true that the *ProcessHandle* [1] is *totally avoiding this > > > > > > issue*. > > > > > > > Unlikely the PS or WMIC or PowerShell commands which are only at the > > > > mitigation level - there is always some risk but it is minimum. > > > > 5. It is true that using a kind of Java reflection (or a modern > > > > *MethodHandle* [2]) we can call *ProcessHandle* [1] without any > problem > > > > even on Java 8 build process of this project (customer's build > process > > > > is > > > > different story - there *ProcessHandle* can be activated). > > > > 6. If we do not want to switch to Java 9, I am fine with that, but > then > > > > > > we > > > > > > > have to continue in the risk mitigation and we should not push the > > > > > > customer > > > > > > > to something he does not like and it is reinstallation of old systems > > > > > > with > > > > > > > PowerShell (which might not be installable). In this case adding > > > > > > PowerShell > > > > > > > is okay but we have to keep WMIC for old Windows systems, and PS for > > > > *Nix > > > > systems. Due to the Java 9 API is simple, and it is simple to call > (in > > > > principal) *ProcessHandle.of(PPID).isAlive()* via the reflection - we > > > > > > have > > > > > > > these experiences, we can switch from *risk mitigation* to a > > > > *guarantee*. > > > > Since of Maven 4, we can delete all of these PowerShell, WMIC, PS > > > > > > commands > > > > > > > and call *ProcessHandle.of(PPID).isAlive() *without reflection - > > > > trivial. > > > > 7. Additionally, we didn't say that there is one more problem. The > > > > > > customer > > > > > > > would not recognize this issue if the native commands fallback-ed to > the > > > > PING mechanism. There is a bug, and it does not matter if you add > > > > PowerShell or the trick with Java 9. It does not matter! This is > > > > missing, > > > > still in the code and that's the reason why yesterday I made the > > > > analysis > > > > of these commands. > > > > > > > [1]: > > > > https://docs.oracle.com/en/java/javase/11/docs/api/java.base/java/lang/Pro > > > cessHandle.html> > > > > [2]: > > > > https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/lang/invoke/MethodHandle.ht > > > ml> > > > > Solution proposal: > > > > > > > > After this analysis, it's clear that the Java8-based projects have to > > > > use > > > > the native commands. WMIC has to fallback to PowerShell if > IOException > > > > is > > > > thrown (Chain of Responsibility design pattern). PS command would > stay > > > > on > > > > *Nix platforms. The Java 9 process checker takes the precedense on > Java > > > > > > 9+, > > > > > > > this must be implemented as Strategy pattern and the appropriate > object > > > > would be selected by platform conditions. Regarding the point (7) the > > > > *ProcessChecker* must be fixed and the handler of the execute method > as > > > > well in order to fallback to PING. No IT deleted. Only two unit tests > > > > > > added > > > > > > > for PowerShell - Windows and *ProcessHandle* - Java9. > > > > > > > > I am very sorry for the inconvenience. > > > > > > > > This would require the reactions, and personal talks. > > > > > > > > I would open Apero beer meeting on every last Tuestady via Google > Meet > > > > where we can friendly talk about the Maven in general. We somehow > > > > stopped > > > > this activity last year and it's the time to continue with this very > > > > nice > > > > activity again. I will send the appointment tomorrow. > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > Tibor17 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Feb 7, 2026 at 1:21 AM Tibor Digaňa <[email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > I would like to have your opinion regarding this issue reported on > > > > > > GitHub: > > > > > "Surefire and Failsafe stop working on latest versions of Windows > due > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > missing wmic" > > > > > Please see the link here > > > > > https://github.com/apache/maven-surefire/issues/3176 > > > > > > > > > > I am the author who developed the PPID Process Checker. When I > worked > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > it together with Michael Osipov, we reached a consensus. It was a > very > > > > > > nice > > > > > > > > personal collaboration, and now I would be glad to have this guy > back > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > the active Maven Team again :-) > > > > > That time we used Java 7 or Java 8, or even both, however Java 9 > was > > > > > available in the world. We could not use the Java 9 however it > could > > > > > > really > > > > > > > > help us. Therefore we decided to call the system library "wmic" on > > > > > > Windows, > > > > > > > > and "ps" on *Nix world, and not Java 9. > > > > > > > > > > Due to the Microsoft Windows removed "wmic", I am open to move > > > > > complete > > > > > Surefire project under Java 9. > > > > > > > > > > I remember how problematic life it was when we had to support both > > > > > > Java 7 > > > > > > > > and Java 8 at the same time. I do not want to support two Java > > > > > versions > > > > > again. > > > > > It would be easier for us to get a confidence from the Maven > community > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > switch to Java 9 directly. > > > > > I hope we would get an exception in the list of Maven plugins. > > > > > > > > > > BTW, One more remark. There are strengths to destroy this project. > > > > > > Let's > > > > > > > > ignore these strengths. We can prevent from this happening if we > are > > > > > positive and we are friendly working together. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > Tibor17 > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
