I'm genuinely curious, is there a reason why Maven has not switched to
fixed release dates and Java support policies?
Every other Java project in which I participate, including the JDK
itself, JavaFX, and NetBeans, switched long ago to predetermined release
dates and Java versions. For any of
There is significantly less backing (nearly none) from any commercial
entities. There is no product management team or PR team or ... we just
get by with anyone chipping in as they can .. and that varies a LOT.
Manfred
On 2025-05-24 12:26 p.m., John Neffenger wrote:
I'm genuinely curious, is t
Hi John,
Manfred is pretty accurate and it is not specific to Apache Maven but to
most best effort projects.
This is why all discussions on that topic failed IMHO.
Side note: these policies are no guarantee of any release in the coming
months since they can change anytime without any notice so wh
Hi,
greatly summarized.
Thank you for that.
Kind regards
Karl Heinz Marbaise
On 24.05.25 19:21, Michael Bien wrote:
On 5/24/25 15:33, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
On Sat, May 24, 2025 at 1:16 PM Tamás Cservenák wrote:
... aaand because some company/ies does/do that,
we as an open source
I don't think they're talking about the Maven 4 API when they expect
API stability.
They rather refer to user-facing API such as schema changes, etc...,
rather than dev-facing API.
We did introduce new features in the RC, but afaik, they're not using
the maven 4 API, I could be wrong though.
Le sa
Hi,
all the points based on Java 8/11/17 is supported for a long time, does
not really make sense from my point of view, because you can create code
for JDK 8 even with JDK 21 (you get warnings about that; different
story) and for those edge cases where it really requires a different
JDK, yo
On Sat, May 24, 2025 at 1:16 PM Tamás Cservenák wrote:
>
> ... aaand because some company/ies does/do that,
> we as an open source project/forget need/must stick to it?
The claim that we must move our JDK version forward because Java
8/11/17 is not supported is fallacious. It is based on a false
On Fri, May 23, 2025 at 5:38 PM Benjamin Marwell wrote:
>
> Hey, I can totally understand the people voting -1 for the given reasons.
> Even with Java 17 support ending in ~15 months FOR PERSONAL USE.
This is **NOT** true, though people keep repeating this. Java 8, 11,
and 17 will be supported f
... aaand because some company/ies does/do that,
we as an open source project/forget need/must stick to it?
So basically, all we did so far was "waste of resources"
as Java 8 is there to stay, at least until 2030, right?
Why did we bother at all!
On Sat, May 24, 2025 at 3:10 PM Elliotte Rusty H
-1.
I'm fine with feature freeze, but the codebase and API have not
reached a stable and reliable state that I'm comfortable committing
to. In particular, there is a lot of API still marked experimental,
and I think we need to make decisions on all of that before pushing a
release version out the
Hello all
Le 2025-05-24 à 15 h 33, Elliotte Rusty Harold a écrit :
If you want to upgrade the minimum Java version, you need a better
reason than that. I haven't yet heard a reason strong enough to
convince me. Others have other opinions.
Java 9+ for supporting JPMS. This is needed not only
On Sat, May 24, 2025, 15:34 Elliotte Rusty Harold
wrote:
> On Sat, May 24, 2025 at 1:16 PM Tamás Cservenák
> wrote:
> >
> > ... aaand because some company/ies does/do that,
> > we as an open source project/forget need/must stick to it?
>
> The claim that we must move our JDK version forward beca
As I mentioned in my earlier summary .. the majority of binding and
non-binding votes were for upgrading to 21. I still heard no one
bringing a good reason for ignoring a majority vote because we had a few
objections.
I also find it amazing that we have to justify and vote for upgrading.
Why
On Sat, 24 May 2025 at 19:36, Slawomir Jaranowski
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Simple question - where oficial release notes should be?
>
What do you mean by official :)
> Are there some policies or recommendations for ASF projects globally?
>
nope. every project use different way (text file, web page, g
On 5/24/25 15:33, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
> On Sat, May 24, 2025 at 1:16 PM Tamás Cservenák wrote:
>> ... aaand because some company/ies does/do that,
>> we as an open source project/forget need/must stick to it?
> The claim that we must move our JDK version forward because Java
> 8/11/17 i
Do we have the list of planned API changes?
Most changes can likely be limited using a "request/response object"
pattern (so we can add data without breaking instead of passing N
parameters), new methods dont break, so ultimately we are not worse than
3.9.x in terms of stability if we respect that
Hi,
Simple question - where oficial release notes should be?
Are there some policies or recommendations for ASF projects globally?
There is not a clear explanation for me at the release procedure [1].
We have mentioned jira and now release notes on GitHub and also mail on
announcements mailing l
17 matches
Mail list logo
