maven-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stephen Connolly <stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Move everything to 1.6
Date Mon, 29 Sep 2014 19:35:24 GMT
well one thing I would like us to do better is communicate exactly which
release lines of Maven we are actively maintaining and what we mean by such
active maintenance.

My personal view is

* if there has been no commit to a release line for > 1 year then it is not
in active maintenance

* if there has been no commit to a release line for > 2 years (and
consequently no release) then we should consider that line potentially
dead... releasing core is tricky enough, so if we have not cut a release of
an older line for more than 2 years then the hurdle to actually cut a
release may be sufficiently high as to prevent any releases.

If we take that criteria into account, 3.0.5 is nearing the end of life.
3.1.1 is probably not being actively maintained.

So I would be looking to mark the 3.0.x line EOL either now or in 5 months

I would be looking to say 3.1.x is "security fixes only" next month

Consequently I would be happy to say that core plugins can pick 3.2.x as
their baseline and be done with it... if people feel strongly against
that... well, if they are committers then I will vote on their releases
from a "stable" branch... if they are not committers, then I will apply
their patches and canvas to make them committers...

For the project's sake, in my view, we have to start clearing out the
cruft... if that means JDK6 as the minimum for everything... fine! if that
means Maven 3.2.1 as the minimum for everything, even better...

Users will be stubborn and use the older versions as long as they can...
but it is increasingly difficult for use - as developers - to develop while
maintaining support for those older jdks and the range of maven cores. If
we can simplify then we should be able to progress faster...

Of course the only rider is that I seem perpetually stuck in side projects
and work projects and never seem to get as much time as i would like to
work on Maven... so I'm not going to force anything.... ultimately it's the
committers that drive this project... I'm just putting my voice out there
for the active committers to take heed of or ignore as they see fit!

On 29 September 2014 20:21, Dennis Lundberg <dennisl@apache.org> wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Stephen Connolly
> <stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Well why I recall we said last time was that we'd only support the jdk
> > supported by the supported versions of maven
> >
> > So *if* one of the core plugins chooses - for technical reasons (such as
> > try with resources or the diamond operator making the code nicer) to bump
> > its dependency to maven 4.0 then that's fine
> >
> > Right now if a plugin has a technical need to force jdk 1.6 it can just
> do
> > that... For users it is cleaner to push that by upping the minimum maven
> > version to 3.2.1 as that guarantees jdk 1.6 minimum.
> >
> > We have not spelled out how we support plugins. The core policy we said
> is
> > a bit wooly but right now we have three lines all less than two years
> > old... My point of view is that we should say:
> >
> > 3.0.x is security fixes only
> > 3.1.x is security fixes only (unless a specific RM steps up... This is
> the
> > call for a committer who wants jdk 1.5 support retained to step up)
> > 3.2.x is active
>
> Regardless of how this discussion and any following vote threads goes,
> we should document the Java requirements for Maven and its various
> components somewhere on our site. There should also be a link to that
> page from the front page called "Technical requirement" or something
> like it. If we can say Java 6 for everything that'll make things easy
> to start with. After that we can add an exceptions-from-the-rule
> section to the page, when some component needs to use a newer version
> of Java for some technical reason.
>
> >
> > So if the plugin developers find their life simplified by restricting to
> > only modern fully supported versions of maven, then let's up them to
> 3.2.x
> > APIs and req jdk 1.6... If there are Committers with needs to support jdk
> > 1.5 we will not prevent them continuing but by and large what I tebd to
> see
> > is a lot of noise that prevents progress and not a lot of stepping up.
> >
> > So if you want a vote that says "unless plugin maintainers feel strongly
> > otherwise, the default is that all new plugin releases should require
> maven
> > 3.2.x and jdk 1.6 as a minimum" then you have my +1
> >
> > Oracle are being aggressive with EOL of jdks so IIUC by the time we
> > actually cut 4.0 it may be jdk 8 and 9 as the only supported versions...
> > Yeeehaw!!!
> >
> > (FYI jenkins is currently considering jdk 8 as a minimum.... I'd love if
> we
> > could jump there too)
> >
> > On Saturday, 27 September 2014, Kristian Rosenvold <
> > kristian.rosenvold@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Yeah Karl, I think you're right :) Things aren't always that easy so
> >> we tend to err in favor of being conservative, which I think is ok.
> >> Personally I think all java versions < 1.8 are a drag right now. So I
> >> think we call a straight vote for 1.6 for everything. Although not
> >> very ambitious, it moves us one step forward. In another 6 months we
> >> do 1 more step forwards :)
> >>
> >> We'll keep this thread open until monday and then call a vote.
> >>
> >> Kristian
> >>
> >>
> >> 2014-09-27 20:56 GMT+02:00 Karl Heinz Marbaise <khmarbaise@gmx.de
> >> <javascript:;>>:
> >> > Hi Kristian,
> >> >
> >> >> Karl; I think you are mixing concerns somewhat -making things a
> little
> >> >>
> >> >> more complex than they need to be.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I think it is not that simple...
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> I would propose that most people using 2.2.1 are not doing so due to
> >> >> the java version,
> >> >
> >> >> but simply because they have not ported their build
> >> >>
> >> >> to 3.X due to a bag of different constraints, java version being only
> >> >> one of them.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > some people do and some don't...but this is an other story....
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> So most users would be able to run 2.2.1 with jdk 1.6. And they can
> >> >> still run 2.2.1 with jdk 1.5, they'll just be missing
> >> >> the upgrades.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I'm with you.....
> >> >
> >> >> This is the "cost" of running old software, and the
> >> >>
> >> >> industry as a whole is making running legacy versions
> >> >> cumbersome/costly.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > really true...But the problem is that migration takes time/money......
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> But I think coupling java version -> maven version like you're doing
> >> >> is basically flawed; for most users this is not about java versions.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > It's a point of view...as i mentioned...consistency...
> >> >
> >> > You are right that i'm coupling this...if it's flawed...it depends...
> >> >
> >> > The java versions are the most cases where an update takes much longer
> >> than
> >> > you think...i have customers which are running on Java 1.5 and Java
> 1.6
> >> (IBM
> >> > based as Anders...1.6 +1...)...
> >> >
> >> > I have written down my thoughts....but of course we can go a different
> >> > way...i just wanted to give my thought and to reconsider things like
> >> > this...for a further decision...
> >> >
> >> > 1.6 might be a good alternative...to go with...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Kristian
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> 2014-09-27 20:01 GMT+02:00 Karl Heinz Marbaise <khmarbaise@gmx.de
> >> <javascript:;>>:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Hi Kristian,
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On 9/27/14 7:23 PM, Kristian Rosenvold wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> We moved core to 1.6 some time ago.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> As far as i know starting with Maven 3.2.1...was the first one...
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Time to move everything else as well ?
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> We have at the moment a large number of plugins which have minimum
> >> Maven
> >> >>> 2.2.1 (JDK 1.5)...and few are currently at Maven 2.0.6  (that's
only
> >> for
> >> >>> a
> >> >>> limited amount of time)
> >> >>>
> >> >>> The next round should be to lift up to Maven 3.0.5 at minimum which
> >> >>> implies
> >> >>> to left Maven 2 finally behind.....
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Making it visible to people by using 3.X versions for the plugins
or
> >> >>> something similar...
> >> >>>
> >> >>> ...afterwards i see the next round to lift up to Maven 3.1.1...
> >> >>> and after that i see the next lift up to Maven 3.2.1 which implies
> Java
> >> >>> 1.6...and so on....
> >> >>>
> >> >>> It's a longer way...which takes time...
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Kristian (Who's ready to say "1.7" but we stop by 1.6 first
:)
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> If we go the above path it's of course longer but more consistence
> from
> >> >>> the
> >> >>> user point of view...using Maven 3.0.5 which works with Java 1.5
> ...and
> >> >>> the
> >> >>> plugins as well...etc...
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Of course from the technical point of view it's not that good ;-(...
> >> >>>
> >> >>> So from my site i would vote with +0 ...
> >> >>>
> >> >
> >> > Kind regards
> >> > Karl-Heinz Marbaise
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> <javascript:;>
> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
> >> <javascript:;>
> >> >
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org <javascript:;>
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
> <javascript:;>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Sent from my phone
>
>
>
> --
> Dennis Lundberg
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message