Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

Hunter, please keep to facts and do not get on a personal level: > It isn't OK to just ignore their input But then you say: > Your personal taste shouldn't [...] I think you just ignored some other dev's input yourself, as some already voted for JDK11+. > If you leave Java8, you leave behind eve

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

Do we really care about plugins Hervé? They are compatible with some maven versions so cover the underlying prerequisites, no? Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

> > notice that this will also impact all plugins: and given the few work done > > on > > plugins to clearly show what plugin version remains compatible with a JDK > > release, I feel we're not taking the topic the right way > > Can you detail it please? While we keep plugin-api java 8 compat - wh

Re: [DISCUSS] Maven runtime vs artifact runtime?

That's how we also our ci and local environment. On prvarte laptops we use latest LTS and ea Java versions to build and compile but use gha to check with other combinations. Sometimes it's a bit huge https://github.com/apache/maven-compiler-plugin/actions/runs/518201 - 3 latest Maven versions (

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

Le mardi 6 juin 2023, 01:54:27 CEST Henning Schmiedehausen a écrit : > To get this discussion a bit more back to actual substance: > > Do you still need toolchains with JDK 11/17? I set the release version to > "8" (or anything else) in my builds, ripped out all the toolchains and it > "just works

Re: [DISCUSS] Maven runtime vs artifact runtime?

I think this difference during Maven build between compile time JDK vs tests execution time JDK is key for normal users choice. And ease of setup if multiple JDKs are involved (= it's not easy to have configured prerequisites in place) I suppose good articles showing the full setup to do so wou

Re: [DISCUSS] Maven runtime vs artifact runtime?

*Just for the record*. Toolchain has a great use case IMHO: enable to run on multiple jdk the same plugin (think surefire/failsafe for ex) without any matrix or CI trick. The big plus: you test the code runs with all versions you need against the same binary without side effects. Sometimes it is i

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

it's not about *one not wanting* to upgrade (anybody can use JDK 17 if they want currently) it's about *one forcing everybody else* to upgrade (and enter the toolchain setup question) I'd be curious to see what will happen the day one of the base plugin force to upgrade: https://ci-maven.apac

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

You need toolchains if your code needs the JAXB classes removed in JDK11. Delany On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 at 01:54, Henning Schmiedehausen < henn...@schmiedehausen.org> wrote: > To get this discussion a bit more back to actual substance: > > Do you still need toolchains with JDK 11/17? I set the relea

RE: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

Toolchains is not needed. Many plugins don't even support it. However, the 'release' flag only checks stuff in java itself as well as your codes direct usage. It doesn't look in the libraries you use indirectly. For that you need the enforcer plugin to look at the byte code. Trust the cross

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

Uhm, I have definitely gotten pushback when I ported some changes back to the 3.8.x branch. The wording was (paraphrasing) "maven 3.8 is dead and we do not plan to do any further releases, so don't add code to it". This was with Maven 3.8.4 :-) -h On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 3:37 AM Guillaume Nodet

Re: [DISCUSS] Maven runtime vs artifact runtime?

Agreed, that is one way to do that, but it seems to me that this is a CI/integration test issue, not a build issue per se. We do the same thing in Jdbi: Build with the LTS JDK, then test against 8, 11, 17, current Java release: https://github.com/jdbi/jdbi/blob/master/.github/workflows/ci.yml Per

Re: [DISCUSS] Maven runtime vs artifact runtime?

I always assumed that Java versions are a solved problem in JDK 9+ with '-release' which creates bytecode for the targeted JDK and even ensures that no classes or methods from the JDK are used that are not supported in that version. There is a desire for "everything must be the same" that I am not

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

To get this discussion a bit more back to actual substance: Do you still need toolchains with JDK 11/17? I set the release version to "8" (or anything else) in my builds, ripped out all the toolchains and it "just works". We have done this for Jdbi for ages (require Java 11+ as the build JDK; we e

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

I have to strongly disagree. If Maven wants to remain relevant it needs to be using a relatively modern JDK and language that is available to open source developers and interesting to work on. Nobody wants to work on Java 8 code. Ultimately the committers and project maintainers can vote and m

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

Other projects have tried to do that (given they are different types of projects) and it turned out that keeping JVM8 support going when not compiling on JDK8 proved difficult and when push came to shove, it was JVM 8 support that was dropped.  I know that's not you or this project, but human n

Re: [VOTE] Release Maven Project Info Reports Plugin version 3.4.5

+1 Jira report is not complete - contains 2 issues, but release notes has 4 https://maven.apache.org/plugins-archives/maven-project-info-reports-plugin-LATEST/jira-report.html sob., 3 cze 2023 o 15:10 Michael Osipov napisał(a): > Hi, > > we solved 4 issues: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/s

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

Your inclination to ignore points of the debate doesn't do your own arguments any justice. Multiple times it's been explained that raising the required runtime JDK in Maven 4 will not prevent you from - building with a lower JDK (via toolchains) - targeting a lower JDK (via the release property) -

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

Hunter, a language done for java (think mojo, no real choice to zmbrace bytecode ecosystem) which is growing is java...scala is dead, groovy dont grow anymore and kotlin kind of stopped too so maybe you do it everydays as some people but ecosystem is clearly not on that side. This part is not reall

Re: [HEADS UP] Upcoming Resolver and Maven releases

I don't care about the threads. They are fine with me. I care about the amount of ceremony that you create that eats into developer time. If you want to do it for yourself: feel free to do so. It is your time after all. But you and others then turn around and say "everyone now needs to do what I a

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

Ok, so let's take these points one at a time:* Reduce build matrix, save energySo, less builds which is good but pretty minimal value. * Attract devsAbsolutely not.  If you want to attract devs, switch to a language that is actually growing (no I'm advocating for this).  That isn't Java.  If any

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

Seems people missed this (somewhat related) thread: https://lists.apache.org/thread/kpsrb28nst84vtohwngy3140g1r0ydd4 Thanks On Mon, Jun 5, 2023, 20:40 Hunter C Payne wrote: > Hi, Karl, I'm not sure I agree you have "stated a benefit" so far. > There have been plenty of hand-wavy arguments b

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

Ok, here's a benefit of Java 11/17 or two: * Reduce build matrix, save energy * Attract devs * CDS for non-OpenJ9-users * Better clarity of code (yes, I mean that) * No additional work (we don't need to migrate, just use the features when modifying a line for a bug/feature anyway) * We leave no on

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

Hi,  Karl, I'm not sure I agree you have "stated a benefit" so far.  There have been plenty of hand-wavy arguments but nothing really solid.  That's why you are getting so much push back.  Point to a specific feature you need or some other thing that would help the project in some significant w

Call for Presentations, Community Over Code Asia 2023

You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to one more more developer mailing lists at the Apache Software Foundation. The call for presentations is now open at "https://apachecon.com/acasia2023/cfp.html";, and will be closed by Sunday, Jun 18th, 2023 11:59 PM GMT. The event will b

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

Hi, On 03.06.23 11:46, Hervé Boutemy wrote: +1 I really don't what benefit we get from going to Java 17 which was already part of the email: > Based on the argument we don't need features of JDK17+ I see a number > of things which could make our handling/maintenance easier for example > us

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

On 05.06.23 13:55, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: Hi Le lun. 5 juin 2023 à 13:22, Elliotte Rusty Harold a écrit : On Sun, Jun 4, 2023 at 10:59 AM Delany wrote: I think the point I'm making is no-one wants to write in an older version of the language they started writing in. Its tedious. Anyone

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

Hi, On 05.06.23 13:21, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote: On Sun, Jun 4, 2023 at 10:59 AM Delany wrote: I think the point I'm making is no-one wants to write in an older version of the language they started writing in. Its tedious. Anyone who started writing java11 code is going to have a hard time

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

I'm having trouble reading this email, hang on, let me adjust the rabbit ears on my black and white television... ah better now. I'm sorry what were you saying? :-) Gary On Mon, Jun 5, 2023, 07:22 Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote: > On Sun, Jun 4, 2023 at 10:59 AM Delany wrote: > > > > I think the

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

Hi Le lun. 5 juin 2023 à 13:22, Elliotte Rusty Harold a écrit : > On Sun, Jun 4, 2023 at 10:59 AM Delany wrote: > > > > I think the point I'm making is no-one wants to write in an older version > > of the language they started writing in. Its tedious. Anyone who started > > writing java11 code

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

On Sun, Jun 4, 2023 at 10:59 AM Delany wrote: > > I think the point I'm making is no-one wants to write in an older version > of the language they started writing in. Its tedious. Anyone who started > writing java11 code is going to have a hard time accepting they need to > write in java8, just as