Re: [DISCUSS] Next release should a pre Maven 4.0.0

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Next release should a pre Maven 4.0.0

Romain Manni-Bucau
Le jeu. 12 nov. 2020 à 22:14, Robert Scholte <[hidden email]> a
écrit :

> The discussion is first of all saying the next release should be
> 4.0.0-alpha-1 (or something similar), so 3.6.3 was the last of the Maven 3
> releases unless we need to backport security fixes.
> What to add to that release is the next discussion.
> Signing is only relevant for releases, but I think most companies don't
> sign jars for their internal projects.
> For those developers the missing features don't matter, but they can
> benefit from a huge amount of improvements.
>

I disagree, a release is not only about signing but also letting others
consume artifacts you produce.
Having a proof it works for us is important before considering it can be a
released feature (on by default).
Also agree we shouldnt put a lot of features per release so maybe just the
pom one in alpha-1? This ensures people can test what we propose and not
only something else more shining.


> Robert
> On 12-11-2020 21:55:51, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hmm, if it does not work e2e then even an alpha is pointless cause nobody
> can test it further than a hello world, was my point.
>
> Le jeu. 12 nov. 2020 à 21:01, Robert Scholte a
> écrit :
>
> > I don't expect that signing will work with the the first alpha, but that
> > shouldn't stop us of collecting feedback.
> > Also we need to have a look at all plugins that do something with the
> pom,
> > like every packaging plugin, maven-source-plugin, maven-release-plugin to
> > ensure the "right" pom is added.
> >
> > And for Maven 4.0.0 we shouldn't have milestone releases of plugins (even
> > though they are stable).
> > There's still enough work to reach 4.0.0, but most likely the first
> alphas
> > are already good enough for the majority.
> >
> > On 12-11-2020 20:45:09, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> > Did we already do mvn or mvn plugins (multimodules) release with the
> > consumer/producer pom feature?
> > If so +1 to do a v4 with this new feature "for us" and v5 with real user
> > features and align it with the xsd.
> >
> > Le jeu. 12 nov. 2020 à 20:00, Robert Scholte a
> > écrit :
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > It is already several years ago where we started discussing about Maven
> > > Next Generations.
> > > Clearly we needed to work on the pom, because over time we're facing
> more
> > > and more limitations.
> > > For (Maven) Central the Model 4.0.0 will be required pom format,
> there's
> > > no discussion about that. So we needed a new architecture where
> there's a
> > > local pom that is transformed to Model 4.0.0 or where it can be
> > generated.
> > > With the implementation of MNG-6656 and the improvement with MNG-6957
> > > we've made the first and important steps based on pom transformation.
> If
> > > this concept proofs itself, we can start thinking about enhancing the
> pom
> > > model.
> > >
> > > When talking about Model 5.0.0 it looked like it would be great to
> > > introduce it for Maven 5. There was even a period where we thought
> about
> > > skipping Maven 4, just to sync the Model version with the Maven
> version.
> > > However, we discovered that this would be a huge change, and that we
> > would
> > > probably need a couple of Maven 4 releases before moving to Maven 5.
> > Maven
> > > 4 would consist of preparation releases.
> > > I've started writing the build/consumer to proof that the it is indeed
> > > possible to separate the local pom from the distributed pom, even
> though
> > > they both are currently still Model 4.0.0 compatible.
> > > The original idea was:
> > > Maven 3: build/consumer feature disabled by default
> > > Maven 4: build/consumer feature enabled by default
> > >
> > > Maven 5: Model 5
> > >
> > > We were worried that this wouldn't give us enough feedback.
> > > maven-integration-testing shows that build/consumer does work. There
> > should
> > > be enough trust to enable it by default, it shouldn't impact existing
> > > projects (the last find by Michael was actually great. It demonstrated
> > the
> > > effect when using threads. The fix made sense and Maven was stable
> > again).
> > > But it is simply not enough. We need much more feedback.
> > >
> > > Meanwhile other improvements have been done, that has impact:
> > > - new behavior of reactor commandline arguments
> > > - upgrade of default versions of plugins per packaging type
> > > - requiring Java 8
> > > - Maven wrapper
> > > - there's a PR waiting that will shift the logic of the
> > > ProjectBuilder/ModelBuilder. As this is quite important for more people
> > to
> > > understand, I'll record a Q&A with Maarten+Martin soon and share it
> with
> > > you.
> > > There are probably more, but all these already defend my opinion about
> > the
> > > next Maven version.
> > >
> > > To me it is not a Maven 3 anymore, we're reached a point where we
> should
> > > start calling it Maven 4.
> > > The next release should probably have an alpha suffix, just to give
> users
> > > the chance to do alpha testing.
> > >
> > > WDYT?
> > > Robert
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Next release should a pre Maven 4.0.0

rfscholte
This is a good topic, but I suggest to start a different thread for it, so we can focus here on the version.
Main question is: are there concerns about moving the version of Maven on master to 4.0.0?

thanks,
Robert
On 13-11-2020 08:20:25, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hmm, this is used by several testing tools and static analyzis tools so the
new pom should likely be at least next to this one but not replace it, like
META-INF/maven/{G}/{A}/pom.original.xml.
Flattening dependencies will likely speed up some tools parsing poms but
tools also parse parent gav and module list (for the part I know) to find
some structure so breaking that part is likely wrong, even for a consumed
pom, this is meta we should keep IMHO.
For instance, when Apache Beam moved from Maven to Gradle, they lost that
and broke some tooling companies had, it requires some effort to compensate
it so I think we shouldn't be that bad, in particular since it does not
cost much to keep it working.

Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau | Blog
| Old Blog
| Github |
LinkedIn | Book



Le jeu. 12 nov. 2020 à 22:43, Robert Scholte a
écrit :

> The pom next to the artifact will be correct and ready to be consumed.
> Only the /META-INF/maven/{G}/{A}/pom.xml will now be the local pom. If you
> make use of some new features this pom might be incomplete, but AFAIK there
> are only a few cases where this embedded pom is used.
>
> Robert
> On 12-11-2020 22:38:33, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> Le jeu. 12 nov. 2020 à 22:14, Robert Scholte a
> écrit :
>
> > The discussion is first of all saying the next release should be
> > 4.0.0-alpha-1 (or something similar), so 3.6.3 was the last of the Maven
> 3
> > releases unless we need to backport security fixes.
> > What to add to that release is the next discussion.
> > Signing is only relevant for releases, but I think most companies don't
> > sign jars for their internal projects.
> > For those developers the missing features don't matter, but they can
> > benefit from a huge amount of improvements.
> >
>
> I disagree, a release is not only about signing but also letting others
> consume artifacts you produce.
> Having a proof it works for us is important before considering it can be a
> released feature (on by default).
> Also agree we shouldnt put a lot of features per release so maybe just the
> pom one in alpha-1? This ensures people can test what we propose and not
> only something else more shining.
>
>
> > Robert
> > On 12-11-2020 21:55:51, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> > Hmm, if it does not work e2e then even an alpha is pointless cause nobody
> > can test it further than a hello world, was my point.
> >
> > Le jeu. 12 nov. 2020 à 21:01, Robert Scholte a
> > écrit :
> >
> > > I don't expect that signing will work with the the first alpha, but
> that
> > > shouldn't stop us of collecting feedback.
> > > Also we need to have a look at all plugins that do something with the
> > pom,
> > > like every packaging plugin, maven-source-plugin, maven-release-plugin
> to
> > > ensure the "right" pom is added.
> > >
> > > And for Maven 4.0.0 we shouldn't have milestone releases of plugins
> (even
> > > though they are stable).
> > > There's still enough work to reach 4.0.0, but most likely the first
> > alphas
> > > are already good enough for the majority.
> > >
> > > On 12-11-2020 20:45:09, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> > > Did we already do mvn or mvn plugins (multimodules) release with the
> > > consumer/producer pom feature?
> > > If so +1 to do a v4 with this new feature "for us" and v5 with real
> user
> > > features and align it with the xsd.
> > >
> > > Le jeu. 12 nov. 2020 à 20:00, Robert Scholte a
> > > écrit :
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > It is already several years ago where we started discussing about
> Maven
> > > > Next Generations.
> > > > Clearly we needed to work on the pom, because over time we're facing
> > more
> > > > and more limitations.
> > > > For (Maven) Central the Model 4.0.0 will be required pom format,
> > there's
> > > > no discussion about that. So we needed a new architecture where
> > there's a
> > > > local pom that is transformed to Model 4.0.0 or where it can be
> > > generated.
> > > > With the implementation of MNG-6656 and the improvement with MNG-6957
> > > > we've made the first and important steps based on pom transformation.
> > If
> > > > this concept proofs itself, we can start thinking about enhancing the
> > pom
> > > > model.
> > > >
> > > > When talking about Model 5.0.0 it looked like it would be great to
> > > > introduce it for Maven 5. There was even a period where we thought
> > about
> > > > skipping Maven 4, just to sync the Model version with the Maven
> > version.
> > > > However, we discovered that this would be a huge change, and that we
> > > would
> > > > probably need a couple of Maven 4 releases before moving to Maven 5.
> > > Maven
> > > > 4 would consist of preparation releases.
> > > > I've started writing the build/consumer to proof that the it is
> indeed
> > > > possible to separate the local pom from the distributed pom, even
> > though
> > > > they both are currently still Model 4.0.0 compatible.
> > > > The original idea was:
> > > > Maven 3: build/consumer feature disabled by default
> > > > Maven 4: build/consumer feature enabled by default
> > > >
> > > > Maven 5: Model 5
> > > >
> > > > We were worried that this wouldn't give us enough feedback.
> > > > maven-integration-testing shows that build/consumer does work. There
> > > should
> > > > be enough trust to enable it by default, it shouldn't impact existing
> > > > projects (the last find by Michael was actually great. It
> demonstrated
> > > the
> > > > effect when using threads. The fix made sense and Maven was stable
> > > again).
> > > > But it is simply not enough. We need much more feedback.
> > > >
> > > > Meanwhile other improvements have been done, that has impact:
> > > > - new behavior of reactor commandline arguments
> > > > - upgrade of default versions of plugins per packaging type
> > > > - requiring Java 8
> > > > - Maven wrapper
> > > > - there's a PR waiting that will shift the logic of the
> > > > ProjectBuilder/ModelBuilder. As this is quite important for more
> people
> > > to
> > > > understand, I'll record a Q&A with Maarten+Martin soon and share it
> > with
> > > > you.
> > > > There are probably more, but all these already defend my opinion
> about
> > > the
> > > > next Maven version.
> > > >
> > > > To me it is not a Maven 3 anymore, we're reached a point where we
> > should
> > > > start calling it Maven 4.
> > > > The next release should probably have an alpha suffix, just to give
> > users
> > > > the chance to do alpha testing.
> > > >
> > > > WDYT?
> > > > Robert
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Next release should a pre Maven 4.0.0

Karl Heinz Marbaise-3
In reply to this post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Hi,

On 12.11.20 20:00, Robert Scholte wrote:

> Hi,
>
> It is already several years ago where we started discussing about Maven Next Generations.
> Clearly we needed to work on the pom, because over time we're facing more and more limitations.
> For (Maven) Central the Model 4.0.0 will be required pom format, there's no discussion about that. So we needed a new architecture where there's a local pom that is transformed to Model 4.0.0 or where it can be generated.
> With the implementation of MNG-6656 and the improvement with MNG-6957 we've made the first and important steps based on pom transformation. If this concept proofs itself, we can start thinking about enhancing the pom model.
>
> When talking about Model 5.0.0 it looked like it would be great to introduce it for Maven 5. There was even a period where we thought about skipping Maven 4, just to sync the Model version with the Maven version.
> However, we discovered that this would be a huge change, and that we would probably need a couple of Maven 4 releases before moving to Maven 5. Maven 4 would consist of preparation releases.
> I've started writing the build/consumer to proof that the it is indeed possible to separate the local pom from the distributed pom, even though they both are currently still Model 4.0.0 compatible.
> The original idea was:
> Maven 3: build/consumer feature disabled by default
> Maven 4: build/consumer feature enabled by default
>
> Maven 5: Model 5
>
> We were worried that this wouldn't give us enough feedback. maven-integration-testing shows that build/consumer does work. There should be enough trust to enable it by default, it shouldn't impact existing projects (the last find by Michael was actually great. It demonstrated the effect when using threads. The fix made sense and Maven was stable again). But it is simply not enough. We need much more feedback.
>
> Meanwhile other improvements have been done, that has impact:
> - new behavior of reactor commandline arguments
> - upgrade of default versions of plugins per packaging type
> - requiring Java 8
> - Maven wrapper
> - there's a PR waiting that will shift the logic of the ProjectBuilder/ModelBuilder. As this is quite important for more people to understand, I'll record a Q&A with Maarten+Martin soon and share it with you.

it would be nice to have a kind of information here on the dev list to
see what kind of consequences this has?

> There are probably more, but all these already defend my opinion about the next Maven version.
>
> To me it is not a Maven 3 anymore, we're reached a point where we should start calling it Maven 4.
> The next release should probably have an alpha suffix, just to give users the chance to do alpha testing.


With a new major version we start to produce high expectations with 4.X

I would suggest to do 3.7.0 first with support:

- new behavior of reactor commandline arguments(?) ?
- Maven 3: build/consumer feature disabled by default (??)
   Needs more testing of corse...
   cause this would help a lot of people... make it easier
   and get rid of flatten part..
   - Signing of artifacts etc. needed to solved first.
- requiring Java 8 (not a big issue; done for several Maven minor
versions before)
- Maven wrapper

getting all that above working fine... and mark a number of classes /
parts/modules as deprecated ... which has not being done yet.

Also I suggest to 3.7.0 instead of 4.0.0 for this cause otherise the
adoption is more hesitant than for a 4.0.0 which is a major version
upgrade....


Maven 4.0.0
   - build/consumer feature enabled by default
   - Remove old stuff
   - break things and improve the build pom ...
   - Remove maven-compat .. ? introducing maven-compat3 ?..
   - Maybe JDK 11 base? (LTS?) just a thought
   -

Also making a 3.7.0 before so we can learn things related to
build-consumer pom before going to Maven 4.0.0 ....where we can break
things which we can not in 3.7.0 ...

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
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Next release should a pre Maven 4.0.0

Hervé BOUTEMY
In reply to this post by Romain Manni-Bucau
very good idea

such an alpha will also be the opportunity to test MNG-5001 = really check
@readonly Mojo parameter, with warning instead of failure, because it seems
there are unexpected side effects for example on maven-site-plugin

Regards,

Hervé

Le jeudi 12 novembre 2020, 20:00:21 CET Robert Scholte a écrit :

> Hi,
>
> It is already several years ago where we started discussing about Maven Next
> Generations. Clearly we needed to work on the pom, because over time we're
> facing more and more limitations. For (Maven) Central the Model 4.0.0 will
> be required pom format, there's no discussion about that. So we needed a
> new architecture where there's a local pom that is transformed to Model
> 4.0.0 or where it can be generated. With the implementation of MNG-6656 and
> the improvement with MNG-6957 we've made the first and important steps
> based on pom transformation. If this concept proofs itself, we can start
> thinking about enhancing the pom model.
>
> When talking about Model 5.0.0 it looked like it would be great to introduce
> it for Maven 5. There was even a period where we thought about skipping
> Maven 4, just to sync the Model version with the Maven version. However, we
> discovered that this would be a huge change, and that we would probably
> need a couple of Maven 4 releases before moving to Maven 5. Maven 4 would
> consist of preparation releases. I've started writing the build/consumer to
> proof that the it is indeed possible to separate the local pom from the
> distributed pom, even though they both are currently still Model 4.0.0
> compatible. The original idea was:
> Maven 3: build/consumer feature disabled by default
> Maven 4: build/consumer feature enabled by default
>
> Maven 5: Model 5
>
> We were worried that this wouldn't give us enough feedback.
> maven-integration-testing shows that build/consumer does work. There should
> be enough trust to enable it by default, it shouldn't impact existing
> projects (the last find by Michael was actually great. It demonstrated the
> effect when using threads. The fix made sense and Maven was stable again).
> But it is simply not enough. We need much more feedback.
>
> Meanwhile other improvements have been done, that has impact:
> - new behavior of reactor commandline arguments
> - upgrade of default versions of plugins per packaging type
> - requiring Java 8
> - Maven wrapper
> - there's a PR waiting that will shift the logic of the
> ProjectBuilder/ModelBuilder. As this is quite important for more people to
> understand, I'll record a Q&A with Maarten+Martin soon and share it with
> you. There are probably more, but all these already defend my opinion about
> the next Maven version.
>
> To me it is not a Maven 3 anymore, we're reached a point where we should
> start calling it Maven 4. The next release should probably have an alpha
> suffix, just to give users the chance to do alpha testing.
>
> WDYT?
> Robert





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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Next release should a pre Maven 4.0.0

Andreas Aronsson
In reply to this post by Karl Heinz Marbaise-3
Hi,

as an avid user and writer of plugins.
I strongly prefer smaller releases.
They are easier to adopt.
As an example the first 4.0 to only bring a few potentially breaking
changes looks very good to me.
I understand that the release process involves a significant amount of work.

Many thanks for all the value your hard work brings us!

All  the best
Andreas


On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 5:15 PM Michael Osipov <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Am 2020-11-13 um 18:31 schrieb Karl Heinz Marbaise:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 12.11.20 20:00, Robert Scholte wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> It is already several years ago where we started discussing about
> >> Maven Next Generations.
> >> Clearly we needed to work on the pom, because over time we're facing
> >> more and more limitations.
> >> For (Maven) Central the Model 4.0.0 will be required pom format,
> >> there's no discussion about that. So we needed a new architecture
> >> where there's a local pom that is transformed to Model 4.0.0 or where
> >> it can be generated.
> >> With the implementation of MNG-6656 and the improvement with MNG-6957
> >> we've made the first and important steps based on pom transformation.
> >> If this concept proofs itself, we can start thinking about enhancing
> >> the pom model.
> >>
> >> When talking about Model 5.0.0 it looked like it would be great to
> >> introduce it for Maven 5. There was even a period where we thought
> >> about skipping Maven 4, just to sync the Model version with the Maven
> >> version.
> >> However, we discovered that this would be a huge change, and that we
> >> would probably need a couple of Maven 4 releases before moving to
> >> Maven 5. Maven 4 would consist of preparation releases.
> >> I've started writing the build/consumer to proof that the it is indeed
> >> possible to separate the local pom from the distributed pom, even
> >> though they both are currently still Model 4.0.0 compatible.
> >> The original idea was:
> >> Maven 3: build/consumer feature disabled by default
> >> Maven 4: build/consumer feature enabled by default
> >>
> >> Maven 5: Model 5
> >>
> >> We were worried that this wouldn't give us enough feedback.
> >> maven-integration-testing shows that build/consumer does work. There
> >> should be enough trust to enable it by default, it shouldn't impact
> >> existing projects (the last find by Michael was actually great. It
> >> demonstrated the effect when using threads. The fix made sense and
> >> Maven was stable again). But it is simply not enough. We need much
> >> more feedback.
> >>
> >> Meanwhile other improvements have been done, that has impact:
> >> - new behavior of reactor commandline arguments
> >> - upgrade of default versions of plugins per packaging type
> >> - requiring Java 8
> >> - Maven wrapper
> >> - there's a PR waiting that will shift the logic of the
> >> ProjectBuilder/ModelBuilder. As this is quite important for more
> >> people to understand, I'll record a Q&A with Maarten+Martin soon and
> >> share it with you.
> >
> > it would be nice to have a kind of information here on the dev list to
> > see what kind of consequences this has?
> >
> >> There are probably more, but all these already defend my opinion about
> >> the next Maven version.
> >>
> >> To me it is not a Maven 3 anymore, we're reached a point where we
> >> should start calling it Maven 4.
> >> The next release should probably have an alpha suffix, just to give
> >> users the chance to do alpha testing.
> >
> >
> > With a new major version we start to produce high expectations with 4.X
> >
> > I would suggest to do 3.7.0 first with support:
> >
> > - new behavior of reactor commandline arguments(?) ?
> > - Maven 3: build/consumer feature disabled by default (??)
> >    Needs more testing of corse...
> >    cause this would help a lot of people... make it easier
> >    and get rid of flatten part..
> >    - Signing of artifacts etc. needed to solved first.
> > - requiring Java 8 (not a big issue; done for several Maven minor
> > versions before)
> > - Maven wrapper
> >
> > getting all that above working fine... and mark a number of classes /
> > parts/modules as deprecated ... which has not being done yet.
> >
> > Also I suggest to 3.7.0 instead of 4.0.0 for this cause otherise the
> > adoption is more hesitant than for a 4.0.0 which is a major version
> > upgrade....
> >
> >
> > Maven 4.0.0
> >    - build/consumer feature enabled by default
> >    - Remove old stuff
> >    - break things and improve the build pom ...
> >    - Remove maven-compat .. ? introducing maven-compat3 ?..
> >    - Maybe JDK 11 base? (LTS?) just a thought
> >    -
> >
> > Also making a 3.7.0 before so we can learn things related to
> > build-consumer pom before going to Maven 4.0.0 ....where we can break
> > things which we can not in 3.7.0 ...
>
> Hi Karl,
>
> I don't think that that we should press such an amount of changes into a
> minor release. If you want to have a 3.7.0 why not branch off 3.6.3 and
> cherry-pick selected changes....
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>

--
Andreas Aronsson
Mobil: +46 704 566 595
http://www.aron.nu

"I'd rather have friends who care than friends who agree with me."
Arlo Guthrie
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Next release should a pre Maven 4.0.0

rfscholte
In reply to this post by Karl Heinz Marbaise-3
Based on the responses it looks like most agree on moving forward to Maven 4.
Regarding the concerns of Karl Heinz I agree with Michaels proposal:
If there is a real need for Maven 3.7.0, let's cherry-pick those commits we want to include.

I'll update the version tomorrow and rename the versions in Jira.

This means we can also have a look at issues that were postponed to Maven 4, because they might break some builds. Would be great if we could clean up those list of branches.

thanks,
Robert
On 21-11-2020 02:30:45, Hervé BOUTEMY <[hidden email]> wrote:
Le lundi 16 novembre 2020, 17:15:39 CET Michael Osipov a écrit :

> Am 2020-11-13 um 18:31 schrieb Karl Heinz Marbaise:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 12.11.20 20:00, Robert Scholte wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> It is already several years ago where we started discussing about
> >> Maven Next Generations.
> >> Clearly we needed to work on the pom, because over time we're facing
> >> more and more limitations.
> >> For (Maven) Central the Model 4.0.0 will be required pom format,
> >> there's no discussion about that. So we needed a new architecture
> >> where there's a local pom that is transformed to Model 4.0.0 or where
> >> it can be generated.
> >> With the implementation of MNG-6656 and the improvement with MNG-6957
> >> we've made the first and important steps based on pom transformation.
> >> If this concept proofs itself, we can start thinking about enhancing
> >> the pom model.
> >>
> >> When talking about Model 5.0.0 it looked like it would be great to
> >> introduce it for Maven 5. There was even a period where we thought
> >> about skipping Maven 4, just to sync the Model version with the Maven
> >> version.
> >> However, we discovered that this would be a huge change, and that we
> >> would probably need a couple of Maven 4 releases before moving to
> >> Maven 5. Maven 4 would consist of preparation releases.
> >> I've started writing the build/consumer to proof that the it is indeed
> >> possible to separate the local pom from the distributed pom, even
> >> though they both are currently still Model 4.0.0 compatible.
> >> The original idea was:
> >> Maven 3: build/consumer feature disabled by default
> >> Maven 4: build/consumer feature enabled by default
> >>
> >> Maven 5: Model 5
> >>
> >> We were worried that this wouldn't give us enough feedback.
> >> maven-integration-testing shows that build/consumer does work. There
> >> should be enough trust to enable it by default, it shouldn't impact
> >> existing projects (the last find by Michael was actually great. It
> >> demonstrated the effect when using threads. The fix made sense and
> >> Maven was stable again). But it is simply not enough. We need much
> >> more feedback.
> >>
> >> Meanwhile other improvements have been done, that has impact:
> >> - new behavior of reactor commandline arguments
> >> - upgrade of default versions of plugins per packaging type
> >> - requiring Java 8
> >> - Maven wrapper
> >> - there's a PR waiting that will shift the logic of the
> >> ProjectBuilder/ModelBuilder. As this is quite important for more
> >> people to understand, I'll record a Q&A with Maarten+Martin soon and
> >> share it with you.
> >
> > it would be nice to have a kind of information here on the dev list to
> > see what kind of consequences this has?
> >
> >> There are probably more, but all these already defend my opinion about
> >> the next Maven version.
> >>
> >> To me it is not a Maven 3 anymore, we're reached a point where we
> >> should start calling it Maven 4.
> >> The next release should probably have an alpha suffix, just to give
> >> users the chance to do alpha testing.
> >
> > With a new major version we start to produce high expectations with 4.X
> >
> > I would suggest to do 3.7.0 first with support:
> >
> > - new behavior of reactor commandline arguments(?) ?
> > - Maven 3: build/consumer feature disabled by default (??)
> >
> > Needs more testing of corse...
> > cause this would help a lot of people... make it easier
> > and get rid of flatten part..
> > - Signing of artifacts etc. needed to solved first.
> >
> > - requiring Java 8 (not a big issue; done for several Maven minor
> > versions before)
> > - Maven wrapper
> >
> > getting all that above working fine... and mark a number of classes /
> > parts/modules as deprecated ... which has not being done yet.
> >
> > Also I suggest to 3.7.0 instead of 4.0.0 for this cause otherise the
> > adoption is more hesitant than for a 4.0.0 which is a major version
> > upgrade....
> >
> >
> > Maven 4.0.0
> >
> > - build/consumer feature enabled by default
> > - Remove old stuff
> > - break things and improve the build pom ...
> > - Remove maven-compat .. ? introducing maven-compat3 ?..
> > - Maybe JDK 11 base? (LTS?) just a thought
> > -
> >
> > Also making a 3.7.0 before so we can learn things related to
> > build-consumer pom before going to Maven 4.0.0 ....where we can break
> > things which we can not in 3.7.0 ...
>
> Hi Karl,
>
> I don't think that that we should press such an amount of changes into a
> minor release. If you want to have a 3.7.0 why not branch off 3.6.3 and
> cherry-pick selected changes....
going to 4.0.0-alpha is a way to avoid additional complexity of feature flags
and an explicit testing period: even if we feature-flag build/consumer feature,
there are many changes that require more serious testing IMHO than going
directly to 3.7.0 with implicit high confidence

>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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]