maven-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>
Subject Re: Maven 2.2.2 soon?
Date Tue, 29 Dec 2009 09:14:26 GMT
As I understand it, 3.0 now consists of significant refactoring of the internals but no major
changes externally. I originally expected 3.0 would have some impact on the pom schema but
I don't think even that has occurred. Given all this is 3.0 really the appropriate version
number?  I usually associate a change to the major release number with something that will
significantly impact the customer.  I understand that all of this stuff is foundationally
necessary to make some of these changes but it would seem more appropriate for this to be
2.5 and go to 3.0 when something significant is added that an end user will notice.

Ralph

On Dec 28, 2009, at 9:12 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:

> 
> On 2009-12-28, at 10:34 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On 29/12/2009, at 1:39 PM, Brian Fox wrote:
>> 
>>> Is there anything pressing that calls for a 2.2.2? The 3.0's are
>>> moving along and are quite usable.
>> 
>> I was just thinking of shipping the existing fixes and anything obvious or regressed
in 2.2.1.
>> 
>> On 29/12/2009, at 1:44 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>> 
>>> I think that the 3.x code is far enough along that if anyone is going to do any
work I think that enough work has been done in 3.x to stop working on 2.x.
>>> 
>>> So much has been fixed, tested and tuned that at this point after using 3.x for
a long time and with the tests that are in place that I'd really like to flatten all the 2.x
versions in JIRA and toss them into the 3.x bucket. Then scour the issues and just throw out
anything that remotely looks like garbage, close things out and get people to test against
3.x and try and get the issue count down to the nuggets that are really going to be new features
or are really bugs.
>> 
>> Might as well, that's realistically the situation anyway. Nobody is going to do major
work on 2.x faced with uncertain prospects in porting it over to 3.x. Keep anything purely
specific to 2.x in the 2.2.x bucket and move bigger stuff out. 
> 
> There's not really much to port really at this point. The ITs can always be improved
but there is a pretty rock solid set of tests there.
> 
>> 
>> But we have to be 100% focused on shipping 3.0 if that's the case. You can't put
an end to 2.2.x when there's no end in sight to 3.0.
> 
> I am not interested in 2.x, but that's why I asked if anyone else was interested in working
on it. I'm not putting an end to 2.x, I'm just not going to work on it anymore.
> 
>> JIRA needs to reflect exactly what needs to be done for 3.0-alphas, betas and final
so we can start counting down. It's fair enough to not specify a date, but at least the target
needs to be in sight to get anyone inclined to help with polishing work.
> 
> It's primarily testing work that needs to be done. The site plugin is probably the only
hole that needs to be filled as that one will affect a lot of users.
> 
>> 
>> For example, where are the issues that reflect switching to Guice and OSGi that we
keep hearing about?
> 
> Neither of those are going to happen in the 3.0 time line. We've got Nexus running on
Guice (with a Plexus shim) now and we need to run that through the grinder for a while. When
that works we can take a look at Maven. Nexus uses almost everything in Plexus that Maven
does and we've not had to change any of code. The Plexus shim adapts everything necessary.
But we'll have to add to the shim to account for some Maven particulars because all the old
code has to work. This is not a small job, but we've got to get Maven off Plexus pronto. We
are not attempting to do the Guice + OSGi in one shot in Nexus and we shouldn't attempt this
with Maven in one shot either. Stuart could probably get Maven working with Guice for 3.0
but I think that would be pushing it. So I think it best to take Guice out of the 3.0 deliverable.
> 
> The OSGi runtime will likely follow what we're doing in Nexus. After getting Guice working
as a replacement for Plexus we will attempt to get Nexus running on Guice + Peaberry for OSGi
and then we'll run that through the grinder as well. We don't know how long that will take,
the Guice stuff is working now but the OSGi is a whole other story. A repository of bundles
doesn't really exist (we're trying to fix that with osgi.sonatype.org) and all the dependencies
would need to be bundle-ized. So we're trying to add a feature to Nexus to turn any JAR into
a bundle on the fly. This is fraught with problems. So I can say pretty definitively no Guice
or OSGi for 3.0, but can easily happen in a 3.1. Ultimately to users they shouldn't notice
anything, and that's just a lot of testing.
> 
> There is plenty to do with 3.0 without Guice and OSGi.
> 
>> I just added one for slf4j that you mentioned. What other things are planned that
are not in there so we can drive towards a goal?
> 
> I think we're done to be honest. If JIRA could be trimmed down, by clearing out the silliness,
and starting to validate that issues marks as bugs have been fixed in 3.x then that will get
us most of the way there. For what remains trying to bug fix and write ITs is really the only
thing left I really want to tackle. If crap pops up that we need to fix for m2eclipse I would
probably sneak in but otherwise testing and validation is largely what remains.
> 
> Using SLF4J as the API will really amount to working over time at injecting a logger
with the SLF4J API instead of the Plexus API one. At very least maybe we can cleanup the Plexus
SLF4J stuff so that if we do provide a way to configure the logging using standard SLF4J stuff
it won't change when we change the API internally. We are doing a lot of logging and tracing
work in Nexus and M2Eclipse right now so some of this might fall out of that and go back into
Maven but if someone else wants to tackle that it would be cool.
> 
>> 
>> I'd also avoid planning 3.1 alphas at this stage. Focus on getting 3.0 out, and everything
else that is after 3.0 can be up for grabs.
>> 
> 
> There I'm only trying to collect things that we cannot change in 3.0. If I've seen things
like POM changes I've just been pushing it into 3.0.alpha1.
> 
>>> 
>>> There are ~650 issues and I think in four weeks with a little teamwork we can
probably drive that down to the 50 things we care about.
>> 
>> I'm happy to help clean up issues, sure. I make a small dent in it occasionally,
but it tends to sap any energy before starting to do any actual work.
>> 
> 
> I'll make another pass. I'm sure there are a ton of duplicates, and stuff that's actually
been fixed in 3.x. It really is just a lot of validation work and writing ITs. Any works that
needs to be done will really only be for fixing compatibility issues at this point.
> 
>> - Brett
>> 
>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jason
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Jason van Zyl
> Founder,  Apache Maven
> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org


Mime
View raw message