From dev-return-125934-archive-asf-public=cust-asf.ponee.io@maven.apache.org Sat May 5 13:46:51 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by mx-eu-01.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id A1089180671 for ; Sat, 5 May 2018 13:46:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 38082 invoked by uid 500); 5 May 2018 11:46:49 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@maven.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Maven Developers List" Reply-To: "Maven Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list dev@maven.apache.org Received: (qmail 38070 invoked by uid 99); 5 May 2018 11:46:49 -0000 Received: from mail-relay.apache.org (HELO mailrelay2-lw-us.apache.org) (207.244.88.137) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 05 May 2018 11:46:49 +0000 Received: from [192.168.1.13] (p548F9C4F.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.143.156.79]) by mailrelay2-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mailrelay2-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTPSA id 2B2231DBE; Sat, 5 May 2018 11:46:47 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: Second MNG-6386 To: Maven Developers List , Stephen Connolly References: <5552d938-7e16-a752-8cc1-5893ff14cb46@apache.org> <1aeba93f-f899-894b-b261-93a689371cba@apache.org> From: Michael Osipov Message-ID: <6d678bf4-ed1a-b502-48ac-e1d6059ab327@apache.org> Date: Sat, 5 May 2018 13:46:45 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Am 2018-05-05 um 13:23 schrieb Stephen Connolly: > On Sat 5 May 2018 at 09:13, Michael Osipov wrote:= >=20 >> Am 2018-05-05 um 09:15 schrieb Stephen Connolly: >>> On Thu 3 May 2018 at 22:10, Michael Osipov wrot= e: >>> >>>> Am 2018-05-02 um 10:41 schrieb Robert Scholte: >>>>> I don't see a new test[1][2], only rewrites to confirm there's no >>>>> regression. >>>>> >>>>> I understand the issue, but we just need to be sure that nobody in = the >>>>> future thinks that File.toURI() is short for File.toPath().toUri() >>>>> >>>>> Robert >>>>> >>>>> [1] >>>>> >>>> >> https://github.com/apache/maven/commit/43b34598629f086523a333dc1866538= 9643832a5 >>>>> >>>>> [2] >>>>> >>>> >> https://github.com/apache/maven-integration-testing/commit/5e18bb18784= 585dfc822038f5229785d439c677b >>>> >>>> Robert, >>>> >>>> done some more digging and added unit and integration tests to it: >>>> >>>> >> https://github.com/apache/maven/commit/9d29bb4d91e9545a9b5bc2957646ad4= 2d5add210 >>>> >>>> >> https://github.com/apache/maven-integration-testing/commit/1f4912cda5f= 49b6ba36a2693bb5c1701ea4d9b86 >>>> >>>> Though, the IT reasonably runs on Unix if UTF-8 is set as file.encod= ing. >>>> I have also updated the ticket with more description. >>>> >>>> I think that this issue should be pushed to 3.6.0. >>> >>> >>> Unclear why you think it should be dropped from 3.5.4. We=E2=80=99re = not changing >>> an API, only fixing a bug... >> >> This fix introduces a change in behavior. It might be unexpected in a >> fix release. If we are still OK for 3.5.4 then I am fine too. >=20 >=20 > Well if we are worried about any change in behaviour then we shouldn=E2= =80=99t make > any changes ever. >=20 > The question is whether this is =E2=80=9Csignificant=E2=80=9D. >=20 > One of my objections to semver is that it only focuses on APIs... so un= der > semver: >=20 > 1. No breaking API method signature changes =3D> no major version bump > 2. No new API methods =3D> no minor version bump > 3. Must be patch >=20 > Now in the case of Maven, I argue for semver is a poor fit, largely bec= ause > we have multiple APIs, SPIs and UIs each of which have different measur= es > of breaking changes... but we only have one version number >=20 > We need to get 3.5.4 with the jansi fix out... simple bug fixes are fin= e > for 3.5.4 too. >=20 > then we focus on the next version (3.6.x or 4.0.x) and move on... but w= e > need to move the baseline to Java 8 at this stage and get Java 10 suppo= rt > better (both of which i=E2=80=99d like to see in a 4.0.x so if we are m= issing those > then it would be 3.6.x) Agreed, I'll move it to 3.5.4. Any other objections from someone else? --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org