Maven Shared Component: Maven Archiver

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Maven Shared Component: Maven Archiver

Karl Heinz Marbaise-3
Hi,

currently I look at maven-archiver component and took a look to upgrade
plexus-archiver from 3.4 to 3.5 but this in consquence needs an upgrade
from JDK 6 to JDK 7 in this shared component...

Is this a way we could go ?

I think it's time in some areas to go that way...which needs to change
the version from 3.1.X to 4.0.0 would be the logical choice but this
breaks the idea of earlier assumptions to show with the 3.X the
relationship to Maven 3.X ...

Or should we simply change to 3.2.X to show there is something change
and make a clear note about the breaking change ?

What do you think ?

Kind regards
Karl Heinz Marbaise

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Maven Shared Component: Maven Archiver

rfscholte
IMHO we're always pretty low on the Java version for a good reason.
I don't think many will notice an upgrade from Java 6 to Java 7 for  
plugins, especially since Maven already requires Java 7 for quite some  
time.

And I still like the concept that 3.x simply means "requires at least  
Maven 3", for both maven-plugins and shared components.
I would go for a archiver 3.2.0

my 2cts,
Robert

On Tue, 08 Aug 2017 21:24:25 +0200, Karl Heinz Marbaise  
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> currently I look at maven-archiver component and took a look to upgrade  
> plexus-archiver from 3.4 to 3.5 but this in consquence needs an upgrade  
> from JDK 6 to JDK 7 in this shared component...
>
> Is this a way we could go ?
>
> I think it's time in some areas to go that way...which needs to change  
> the version from 3.1.X to 4.0.0 would be the logical choice but this  
> breaks the idea of earlier assumptions to show with the 3.X the  
> relationship to Maven 3.X ...
>
> Or should we simply change to 3.2.X to show there is something change  
> and make a clear note about the breaking change ?
>
> What do you think ?
>
> Kind regards
> Karl Heinz Marbaise
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Loading...