I'll try to add this to the dev section of our site this weekend.
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 6:18 PM, Kristian Rosenvold
wrote:
> Conclusion: We're off to 1.6-land !
>
> - Update to jdk 6.0 "at will", but please be sure that we're not
> leaving the last 1.5 version in a regressed state.
> - Minor ver
Conclusion: We're off to 1.6-land !
- Update to jdk 6.0 "at will", but please be sure that we're not
leaving the last 1.5 version in a regressed state.
- Minor version bump for jdk 1.6 upgrade, remember to tag jira version
as "First 1.6 version" (in manage versions)
- To achieve this it is probabl
Go for Java 7! Or 8!
Gary
Original message From: Tibor Digana
Date:01/01/2015 15:07 (GMT-05:00)
To: dev@maven.apache.org Cc: Subject: Re:
[DISCUSS] Move everything to 1.6, take 2 (was: Re: I can't make
a release ...)
JDK1.5 and 1.6 are unsupported anymore.
JDK 1
JDK1.5 and 1.6 are unsupported anymore.
JDK 1.7 is still long alive and under maintenance.
The Java SE 7 API won't be taken back due to whatever JVM fault :))
The JDK 8 is alive too short.
I don't see any reason why the default Maven plugins have to go with awful
1.5 or 1.6.
We can freely switch
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 6:36 PM, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote:
> personnally, I use invoker: no compatibility problems
I try to make unit tests when I can make unit tests. it's a religion,
or a disease. I agree that falling back to the invoker is the
fallback.
>
> Regards,
>
> Hervé
>
> Le mardi 30 décem
personnally, I use invoker: no compatibility problems
Regards,
Hervé
Le mardi 30 décembre 2014 17:45:36 Benson Margulies a écrit :
> In my experience, there are significant API issues between 3.0 and
> 3.1. My particular obsession is with the plugin testing harness.
>
> I've had several experie
In my experience, there are significant API issues between 3.0 and
3.1. My particular obsession is with the plugin testing harness.
I've had several experiences of the following forn:
1: go to fix a problem in a plugin.
2: try to create an appropriately focussed test
3: try to set up the testing
On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 9:04 PM, Robert Scholte
wrote:
> Op Sun, 28 Dec 2014 19:37:47 +0100 schreef Kristian Rosenvold <
> kristian.rosenv...@gmail.com>:
>
> I'll sumarize what appears to be our consensus so far.
>>
>> Update to jdk 6.0 "at will", but please be sure that we're not leaving
>> the
Le dimanche 28 décembre 2014 21:04:50 Robert Scholte a écrit :
> Op Sun, 28 Dec 2014 19:37:47 +0100 schreef Kristian Rosenvold
>
> :
> > I'll sumarize what appears to be our consensus so far.
> >
> > Update to jdk 6.0 "at will", but please be sure that we're not leaving
> > the last 1.5 version i
Op Sun, 28 Dec 2014 19:37:47 +0100 schreef Kristian Rosenvold
:
I'll sumarize what appears to be our consensus so far.
Update to jdk 6.0 "at will", but please be sure that we're not leaving
the last 1.5 version in a regressed state.
Version number indicates minimum maven version, so a simple
I'll sumarize what appears to be our consensus so far.
Update to jdk 6.0 "at will", but please be sure that we're not leaving
the last 1.5 version in a regressed state.
Version number indicates minimum maven version, so a simple JDK
upgrade only mandates a minor version update.
We are also in a si
Hi Kristian,
I am +1 for any Release Manager wanting to up the minimum Java version
to 1.6 for any of our components, on one condition: if there are any
bugs fixed since the last release of the component, then please do a
final Java 5 compatible release of the component before moving it to
Java 6.
Did we already cover what we want to keep supporting via Toolchains?
We would have to take some care in Surefire if we wanted to keep some
support for <1.6 when using toolchains or when allowing users to configure
a different JVM.
2014-12-25 15:57 GMT+01:00 Karl Heinz Marbaise :
> Hi,
>
> let
Hi,
let me summarize things a little bit:
> Last time discussed this we established a consensus to establish 3.0.5
> (maybe 3.0.6) as a minimum baseline for the 3.x range of plugins.
http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@maven.apache.org/msg102539.html
that was not three months ago...so the line to
>
> >
> > 2014-12-25 6:25 GMT+01:00 Gary Gregory :
> > > +1
> > >
> > > Gary
> > >
> > > Original message From: Benson
> Margulies
> > Date:12/24/2014 17:08 (GMT-05:00)
> > To: Maven Developers List
>
--- Original message From: Benson Margulies
> Date:12/24/2014 17:08 (GMT-05:00)
> To: Maven Developers List
> Cc: Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Move everything to 1.6,
> take 2 (was: Re: I can't make a
> > release ...)
> > Here's what I don't under
.rosenv...@gmail.com>:
>
>> It appears that IBM JDK6 is EOL september next year. People move at
>> different speeds :)
>>
>> Kristian
>>
>>
>>
>> 2014-12-25 6:25 GMT+01:00 Gary Gregory :
>> > +1
>> >
>> > Gary
>> >
n Developers List Cc:
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Move everything to 1.6, take 2 (was: Re: I
> can't make a
> release ...)
> Here's what I don't understand. I can see why people need to keep
> building apps that run on antediluvian version. I can't see why it's
&g
+1
Gary
Original message From: Benson Margulies
Date:12/24/2014 17:08 (GMT-05:00)
To: Maven Developers List Cc:
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Move everything to 1.6, take 2 (was: Re: I
can't make a
release ...)
Here's what I don't understand. I can see why
I assume that anyone wishing for 1.7 will also accept 1.6.
I would really just like to establish a consensus that we're leaving
1.5 in favour of 1.6. We have a certain tradition for being "last" to
leave jdk versions and I don't really mind this. It *does* become a
problem when it makes practical
Here's what I don't understand. I can see why people need to keep
building apps that run on antediluvian version. I can't see why it's
such a problem for a tool, such as Maven, to require 1.7. Who are we
accomodating by the current policy, or even the 1.6 plan?
Meanwhile, it seems to me that we do
+1.
jdk 1.6 is EOL-ed for some time (Feb 2013) already and even 1.7 will be
EOL-ed in April 2015..
I would suggest moving straight to 1.7 but I guess that's been already
discussed.
Milos
On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 7:54 AM, Robert Scholte
wrote:
> +1, would also make testing with JDK9 easier, alt
First: +1 for 1.6 minimum.
Second: I feel we need to take a more strategic look at java in general and
plugin mechanics & dependencies in particular. 1.6 is deprecated since a
few years - and while its bytecode runs fine on a JDK 8 runtime, any
implicit dependencies and internal reflection magic
+1, would also make testing with JDK9 easier, although I've already found
a good solution for that.
Robert
Op Wed, 24 Dec 2014 14:20:06 +0100 schreef Kristian Rosenvold
:
Oops. Snappy contains 1.6 java bytecode, which breaks the build on
maven plugins. We need to upgrade to 1.6; I'm taki
+1
(Hoping we can get up to 1.7 soon too)
On Wednesday, 24 December 2014, Kristian Rosenvold
wrote:
> >Oops. Snappy contains 1.6 java bytecode, which breaks the build on maven
> plugins. We need to upgrade to 1.6; I'm taking this to the mailing list :)
>
> Last time discussed this we establishe
+1
if someone really wants to stay with JDK 5, just don't update plugins to
latest and greatest
and IMHO, if we need to maintain Maven 3.0.x in parallel from 3.2.x, that's
not because of the JDK prerequisite: that's because there are problems to
upgrade some plugins because of Aether change
R
We already discussed this so many times
But seriously with 2015 coming really soon I believe it's time.
Finally so many years after java 1.5 EOL! :-)
--
Olivier
On 25 Dec 2014 00:20, "Kristian Rosenvold" wrote:
> >Oops. Snappy contains 1.6 java bytecode, which breaks the build on maven
> plu
>Oops. Snappy contains 1.6 java bytecode, which breaks the build on maven
>plugins. We need to upgrade to 1.6; I'm taking this to the mailing list :)
Last time discussed this we established a consensus to establish 3.0.5
(maybe 3.0.6) as a minimum baseline for the 3.x range of plugins.
This 3.0.
Le lundi 29 septembre 2014 21:16:56 Dennis Lundberg a écrit :
> On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 8:01 PM, Karl Heinz Marbaise
wrote:
> > 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 th
+100 .. I totally agree.
RIP Maven 2.x
EOL Maven 3.0.x very soon
And more importantly... update the website and clearly document that state.
manfred
Stephen Connolly wrote on 29.09.2014 12:35:
> well one thing I would like us to do better is communicate exactly which
> release lines of Maven
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 ther
On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Stephen Connolly
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
On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 8:01 PM, Karl Heinz Marbaise wrote:
> 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
+2
On 28 Sep 2014, at 21:36, Robert Scholte wrote:
I would go one step further: make the toolchains.xml part of the Maven
distribution, aside the settings.xml with the same amount of
documentation.
That should make it clear how to divide the Maven Runtime JDK from the
Compile JDK.
Robert
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 th
+1 for making toolchains part of the distribution.
Regards
Mirko
--
Sent from my mobile
On Sep 28, 2014 10:36 AM, "Robert Scholte" wrote:
> I would go one step further: make the toolchains.xml part of the Maven
> distribution, aside the settings.xml with the same amount of documentation.
> That
I would go one step further: make the toolchains.xml part of the Maven
distribution, aside the settings.xml with the same amount of documentation.
That should make it clear how to divide the Maven Runtime JDK from the
Compile JDK.
Robert
Op Sun, 28 Sep 2014 05:02:04 +0200 schreef Mark Derric
On 28 Sep 2014, at 7:27, Kristian Rosenvold wrote:
But I think coupling java version -> maven version like you're doing
is basically flawed; for most users this is not about java versions.
With this - I think further promotion and support of the
maven-toolchains-plugin might be handy. The JVM
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
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 b
Michael; we are heavily into jdk7 file-system related features, most
of which is covered by feature detection/jdk detection. Plexus
requires 1.7 to build but still supports 1.5. I'll split a bottle of
champagne the day we can drop 1.5/1.6 support from plexus and various
utility projects with reflec
Karl; I think you are mixing concerns somewhat -making things a little
more complex than they need to be.
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 ve
1.6 is fine by me. Working actively with a customer using IBM's JDK 1.6,
which is still supported by IBM, will make me vote -1 on a move to 1.7
currently.
/Anders
On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 8:01 PM, Karl Heinz Marbaise
wrote:
> Hi Kristian,
>
> On 9/27/14 7:23 PM, Kristian Rosenvold wrote:
>
>> We
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
Let's use the [discuss] thread constructively then; do we call a
[VOTE] to move *everything* to 1.7 ? I think we are ready to move to
1.6 without actually having a vote, so if you for some reason oppose
the move to 1.6 please say so in the "discuss" thread or I will simply
conclude that we move eve
Agree. 1.7 makes more sense at this point.
On September 27, 2014 1:41:31 PM EDT, Michael Osipov <1983-01...@gmx.net> wrote:
>
>> We moved core to 1.6 some time ago. Time to move everything else as
>well ?
>>
>> Kristian (Who's ready to say "1.7" but we stop by 1.6 first :)
>
>
>I would favor the
> We moved core to 1.6 some time ago. Time to move everything else as well ?
>
> Kristian (Who's ready to say "1.7" but we stop by 1.6 first :)
I would favor the move to Java 1.7 if we make strong use of NIO2 for file
operations. A lot of pain should go away.
Michael
+1
On Sep 27, 2014, at 1:23 PM, Kristian Rosenvold
wrote:
> We moved core to 1.6 some time ago. Time to move everything else as well ?
>
> Kristian (Who's ready to say "1.7" but we stop by 1.6 first :)
>
> -
> To unsubscribe,
We moved core to 1.6 some time ago. Time to move everything else as well ?
Kristian (Who's ready to say "1.7" but we stop by 1.6 first :)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail:
49 matches
Mail list logo
