Re: [DISCUSS] Next release version: 3.6.4, 3.7.0, 3.8.0 or other

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 version: 3.6.4, 3.7.0, 3.8.0 or other

Hervé BOUTEMY
thank you Romain for your view

current reasoning behind 3.8.0 choice is written in release notes [1]

-  Why not 3.6.4?
This is not just a bugfix as it contains three features that cause a change of default behavior (external HTTP insecure URLs are now blocked by default): your builds may fail when using this new Maven release, if you use now blocked repositories. Please check and eventually fix before upgrading.

- Why not 3.7.0?
Apache Maven 3.7.0 has been advertised in the past that it would be the first release where you could optionally activate the build/consumer feature: the version containing this feature has been renamed to 4.0.0. Reusing 3.7.0 might lead to confusion, hence we picked the next available minor version.


I personally have a strong feeling against 3.6.4: it's not just a bugfix, it would cause surprises to users upgrading with full confidence.

On 3.7 vs 3.8, reasoning is fully written. We skipped versions in the past, it's not a big deal.

tm me, 3.8.0 is the best choice for users (and if they have questions why this version, they have 2 little answers in the release notes)

Regards,

Hervé


[1] https://maven.apache.org/docs/3.8.0/release-notes.html#why-does-this-version-have-the-value-3-8-0

Le dimanche 28 mars 2021, 11:47:11 CEST Romain Manni-Bucau a écrit :

> Hi all,
>
> Before we reroll the failed 3.8.0 I'd like we discuss openly the next
> versioning since it seems we didn't reach a consensus yet and trying to not
> create too much friction for users and in the community.
>
> As a reminder the only feature the release will get is to prevent HTTP repo
> (in favor of HTTPS ones). In that regard it is a breaking change if users
> rely on HTTP repo but a security fix (I don't come back on the HTTP ->
> HTTPS move IT ecosystem got recently here).
>
> So it seems there are multiple versioning options:
>
> 1. 3.6.4: seems natural since it is a security fix, enables companies to
> get this fix respecting a project versioning policy without having to
> upgrade and avoids us to have to maintain 3.6 + 3.7/3.8 and soon 4.x.
> Indeed it requires a very well documented paragraph about this change and
> how to workaround it (local proxy/mirror is a trivial one for example) but
> it will be the case whatever version we pick anyway IMHO.
> 2. 3.7.0: since it is a breaking change it can seem natural too (but has
> the pitfall to likely require a backport in 3.6 anyway, due to the
> versioning policies which can prevent some users to upgrade to a 3.7)
> 3. 3.8.0: was the vote, seems the rational was that originally we
> targetting mvnw in 3.7 and since we didn't make it 3.8 was used. Have to
> admit I'm not sure of this reasoning more than that (cause for me if we
> don't have a planned feature we can either try to push/wait for it or
> postpone it but not skip a version due to that) so if anyone wants to
> complete the reasoning here it would be great.
>
> Indeed my preference is for 3.6.4 which has the most advantages for
> everyone and no additional drawbacks compared to 3.7 or 3.8 options until
> we try to push to get mvnw in which would mean 3.7 becomes more natural
> (and likely imply a 3.6.x maintenance version).
>
> Goal of this thread is to feel the overall trend and see if we can refine
> the proposals (for example: can we drop 3.8 one and only keep 3.7 and 3.6
> or - best - can we refine it to a single version after some exchanges).
> If we keep a few proposals after some days, what about a vote where the
> majority wins - we would just need to define how we count,
> bindings/committers/all (my preference being last one indeed)?
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau>
> | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
> >





---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 version: 3.6.4, 3.7.0, 3.8.0 or other

Romain Manni-Bucau
So seems there are two points to refine:

1. Is the http change *without as such toggle* a security fix (3.6) or
feature (3.7 or 3.8)
2. Do we fully reject semver and use 2 digit versioning (seems it is what
we often do).

On 1 im clearly for the security fix.
On 2 i dont care but we should explicit it for users to let them write
relevant versioning policies (use 3.N vs use 3.6.N for ex). Trust me, it
costs a lot for nothing to integrators/users and long term projects.

Le dim. 28 mars 2021 à 16:39, Markus KARG <[hidden email]> a écrit :

> Nonsense. It is common sense that most criminal acts are spawned from
> within the local network, due to social engineering.
> -Markus
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Som Lima [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Gesendet: Sonntag, 28. März 2021 15:06
> An: Maven Developers List
> Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Next release version: 3.6.4, 3.7.0, 3.8.0 or other
>
> > BTW there should be an option to still use unsecure http as many people
> run http in their LANs.
>
> I could be wrong but I think the intranet is a tightly coupled  comm system
> therefore it is secure by design.
>
>
>
> On Sun, 28 Mar 2021, 13:31 Markus KARG, <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > We should not do any tricks or unexpected behavior but just stick with
> > SemVer.
> > If there is a need for a security fix, it has to be 3.6.4 and BTW there
> > should be an option to still use unsecure http as many people run http in
> > their LANs.
> > If it contains backwards-compatible features, it has to be 3.7.0.
> > If it breaks backwards-compatibility, it has to be 4.0.0.
> > In no case it can be 3.8.0.
> > If mvnw was proposed for 3.7 but is not here now, then we either have to
> > wait with 3.7.0, or we have to tell people that we move mvnw to 3.8 or
> 4.0.
> > I do not see a need for any discussion at all, as SemVer is pretty clear
> > about the sole correct answer.
> > -Markus
> >
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: Romain Manni-Bucau [mailto:[hidden email]]
> > Gesendet: Sonntag, 28. März 2021 11:47
> > An: Maven Developers List
> > Betreff: [DISCUSS] Next release version: 3.6.4, 3.7.0, 3.8.0 or other
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Before we reroll the failed 3.8.0 I'd like we discuss openly the next
> > versioning since it seems we didn't reach a consensus yet and trying to
> not
> > create too much friction for users and in the community.
> >
> > As a reminder the only feature the release will get is to prevent HTTP
> repo
> > (in favor of HTTPS ones). In that regard it is a breaking change if users
> > rely on HTTP repo but a security fix (I don't come back on the HTTP ->
> > HTTPS move IT ecosystem got recently here).
> >
> > So it seems there are multiple versioning options:
> >
> > 1. 3.6.4: seems natural since it is a security fix, enables companies to
> > get this fix respecting a project versioning policy without having to
> > upgrade and avoids us to have to maintain 3.6 + 3.7/3.8 and soon 4.x.
> > Indeed it requires a very well documented paragraph about this change and
> > how to workaround it (local proxy/mirror is a trivial one for example)
> but
> > it will be the case whatever version we pick anyway IMHO.
> > 2. 3.7.0: since it is a breaking change it can seem natural too (but has
> > the pitfall to likely require a backport in 3.6 anyway, due to the
> > versioning policies which can prevent some users to upgrade to a 3.7)
> > 3. 3.8.0: was the vote, seems the rational was that originally we
> > targetting mvnw in 3.7 and since we didn't make it 3.8 was used. Have to
> > admit I'm not sure of this reasoning more than that (cause for me if we
> > don't have a planned feature we can either try to push/wait for it or
> > postpone it but not skip a version due to that) so if anyone wants to
> > complete the reasoning here it would be great.
> >
> > Indeed my preference is for 3.6.4 which has the most advantages for
> > everyone and no additional drawbacks compared to 3.7 or 3.8 options until
> > we try to push to get mvnw in which would mean 3.7 becomes more natural
> > (and likely imply a 3.6.x maintenance version).
> >
> > Goal of this thread is to feel the overall trend and see if we can refine
> > the proposals (for example: can we drop 3.8 one and only keep 3.7 and 3.6
> > or - best - can we refine it to a single version after some exchanges).
> > If we keep a few proposals after some days, what about a vote where the
> > majority wins - we would just need to define how we count,
> > bindings/committers/all (my preference being last one indeed)?
> >
> > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
> > <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
> > https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> > LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> > <
> >
> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
> > >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Next release version: 3.6.4, 3.7.0, 3.8.0 or other

Som Lima
In reply to this post by Hervé BOUTEMY
I thought we were talking about computer programming algorithms.


Social engineering  is outside the scope of the  discussion on the subject
of the  algorithm devised in the invisible ( to API developers), network
layer implementation.

The  scope of discussion is that the intranet is a tightly coupled comm
system therefore secure by design.
Imagine a couple holding each other tightly so no intruder, (third party)
can  come in  between and interfere.


Meanwhile the internet  (loosely coupled) due to physical limitations could
not be implemented  using the same algorithm.
It was left to users  to work out the security which can be done using
encryption (HTTPS) as one means of security. Other strategies are also
available. Only the CHECKSUM was supplied as means of data integrity by the
network Gods.

Anybody want to talk about intraprocess (tight coupling) and Interprocess
(loose coupling) ?





On Sun, 28 Mar 2021, 15:39 Markus KARG, <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Nonsense. It is common sense that most criminal acts are spawned from
> within the local network, due to social engineering.
> -Markus
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Som Lima [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Gesendet: Sonntag, 28. März 2021 15:06
> An: Maven Developers List
> Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Next release version: 3.6.4, 3.7.0, 3.8.0 or other
>
> > BTW there should be an option to still use unsecure http as many people
> run http in their LANs.
>
> I could be wrong but I think the intranet is a tightly coupled  comm system
> therefore it is secure by design.
>
>
>
> On Sun, 28 Mar 2021, 13:31 Markus KARG, <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > We should not do any tricks or unexpected behavior but just stick with
> > SemVer.
> > If there is a need for a security fix, it has to be 3.6.4 and BTW there
> > should be an option to still use unsecure http as many people run http in
> > their LANs.
> > If it contains backwards-compatible features, it has to be 3.7.0.
> > If it breaks backwards-compatibility, it has to be 4.0.0.
> > In no case it can be 3.8.0.
> > If mvnw was proposed for 3.7 but is not here now, then we either have to
> > wait with 3.7.0, or we have to tell people that we move mvnw to 3.8 or
> 4.0.
> > I do not see a need for any discussion at all, as SemVer is pretty clear
> > about the sole correct answer.
> > -Markus
> >
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: Romain Manni-Bucau [mailto:[hidden email]]
> > Gesendet: Sonntag, 28. März 2021 11:47
> > An: Maven Developers List
> > Betreff: [DISCUSS] Next release version: 3.6.4, 3.7.0, 3.8.0 or other
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Before we reroll the failed 3.8.0 I'd like we discuss openly the next
> > versioning since it seems we didn't reach a consensus yet and trying to
> not
> > create too much friction for users and in the community.
> >
> > As a reminder the only feature the release will get is to prevent HTTP
> repo
> > (in favor of HTTPS ones). In that regard it is a breaking change if users
> > rely on HTTP repo but a security fix (I don't come back on the HTTP ->
> > HTTPS move IT ecosystem got recently here).
> >
> > So it seems there are multiple versioning options:
> >
> > 1. 3.6.4: seems natural since it is a security fix, enables companies to
> > get this fix respecting a project versioning policy without having to
> > upgrade and avoids us to have to maintain 3.6 + 3.7/3.8 and soon 4.x.
> > Indeed it requires a very well documented paragraph about this change and
> > how to workaround it (local proxy/mirror is a trivial one for example)
> but
> > it will be the case whatever version we pick anyway IMHO.
> > 2. 3.7.0: since it is a breaking change it can seem natural too (but has
> > the pitfall to likely require a backport in 3.6 anyway, due to the
> > versioning policies which can prevent some users to upgrade to a 3.7)
> > 3. 3.8.0: was the vote, seems the rational was that originally we
> > targetting mvnw in 3.7 and since we didn't make it 3.8 was used. Have to
> > admit I'm not sure of this reasoning more than that (cause for me if we
> > don't have a planned feature we can either try to push/wait for it or
> > postpone it but not skip a version due to that) so if anyone wants to
> > complete the reasoning here it would be great.
> >
> > Indeed my preference is for 3.6.4 which has the most advantages for
> > everyone and no additional drawbacks compared to 3.7 or 3.8 options until
> > we try to push to get mvnw in which would mean 3.7 becomes more natural
> > (and likely imply a 3.6.x maintenance version).
> >
> > Goal of this thread is to feel the overall trend and see if we can refine
> > the proposals (for example: can we drop 3.8 one and only keep 3.7 and 3.6
> > or - best - can we refine it to a single version after some exchanges).
> > If we keep a few proposals after some days, what about a vote where the
> > majority wins - we would just need to define how we count,
> > bindings/committers/all (my preference being last one indeed)?
> >
> > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
> > <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
> > https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> > LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> > <
> >
> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
> > >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Next release version: 3.6.4, 3.7.0, 3.8.0 or other

Romain Manni-Bucau
Hi,

I kind of agree intranet is as secure as the internet (ie a lot of attacks
done last years were done on intranets). yes you are in a local vpc not
accessible from the outside but it is also where hackers try to enter first
since then it is open bar for them.
That said it is very common to use http as a quick serving too - thinking
to trainings and hacking sessions where a tomcat serves a local m2 for
example.
I guess this all lead to the fact we need to support HTTP anyway and
enable/document how to still use it in the coming version (and not prevent
it in a hardcoded fashion).
In terms of security it would be left to the user to enable it explicitly -
defaults being secured, exactly as the 0-day vulnerability got fixed in all
softwares.
Sounds more than relevant to me to enable that case while it is not the
default.

That said, having this kind of toggle pushes to 3.6.4 more than all others
by design then, no?

Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
<https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
<https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>


Le lun. 29 mars 2021 à 08:51, Som Lima <[hidden email]> a écrit :

> I thought we were talking about computer programming algorithms.
>
>
> Social engineering  is outside the scope of the  discussion on the subject
> of the  algorithm devised in the invisible ( to API developers), network
> layer implementation.
>
> The  scope of discussion is that the intranet is a tightly coupled comm
> system therefore secure by design.
> Imagine a couple holding each other tightly so no intruder, (third party)
> can  come in  between and interfere.
>
>
> Meanwhile the internet  (loosely coupled) due to physical limitations could
> not be implemented  using the same algorithm.
> It was left to users  to work out the security which can be done using
> encryption (HTTPS) as one means of security. Other strategies are also
> available. Only the CHECKSUM was supplied as means of data integrity by the
> network Gods.
>
> Anybody want to talk about intraprocess (tight coupling) and Interprocess
> (loose coupling) ?
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, 28 Mar 2021, 15:39 Markus KARG, <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Nonsense. It is common sense that most criminal acts are spawned from
> > within the local network, due to social engineering.
> > -Markus
> >
> >
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: Som Lima [mailto:[hidden email]]
> > Gesendet: Sonntag, 28. März 2021 15:06
> > An: Maven Developers List
> > Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Next release version: 3.6.4, 3.7.0, 3.8.0 or other
> >
> > > BTW there should be an option to still use unsecure http as many people
> > run http in their LANs.
> >
> > I could be wrong but I think the intranet is a tightly coupled  comm
> system
> > therefore it is secure by design.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 28 Mar 2021, 13:31 Markus KARG, <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > We should not do any tricks or unexpected behavior but just stick with
> > > SemVer.
> > > If there is a need for a security fix, it has to be 3.6.4 and BTW there
> > > should be an option to still use unsecure http as many people run http
> in
> > > their LANs.
> > > If it contains backwards-compatible features, it has to be 3.7.0.
> > > If it breaks backwards-compatibility, it has to be 4.0.0.
> > > In no case it can be 3.8.0.
> > > If mvnw was proposed for 3.7 but is not here now, then we either have
> to
> > > wait with 3.7.0, or we have to tell people that we move mvnw to 3.8 or
> > 4.0.
> > > I do not see a need for any discussion at all, as SemVer is pretty
> clear
> > > about the sole correct answer.
> > > -Markus
> > >
> > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > > Von: Romain Manni-Bucau [mailto:[hidden email]]
> > > Gesendet: Sonntag, 28. März 2021 11:47
> > > An: Maven Developers List
> > > Betreff: [DISCUSS] Next release version: 3.6.4, 3.7.0, 3.8.0 or other
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Before we reroll the failed 3.8.0 I'd like we discuss openly the next
> > > versioning since it seems we didn't reach a consensus yet and trying to
> > not
> > > create too much friction for users and in the community.
> > >
> > > As a reminder the only feature the release will get is to prevent HTTP
> > repo
> > > (in favor of HTTPS ones). In that regard it is a breaking change if
> users
> > > rely on HTTP repo but a security fix (I don't come back on the HTTP ->
> > > HTTPS move IT ecosystem got recently here).
> > >
> > > So it seems there are multiple versioning options:
> > >
> > > 1. 3.6.4: seems natural since it is a security fix, enables companies
> to
> > > get this fix respecting a project versioning policy without having to
> > > upgrade and avoids us to have to maintain 3.6 + 3.7/3.8 and soon 4.x.
> > > Indeed it requires a very well documented paragraph about this change
> and
> > > how to workaround it (local proxy/mirror is a trivial one for example)
> > but
> > > it will be the case whatever version we pick anyway IMHO.
> > > 2. 3.7.0: since it is a breaking change it can seem natural too (but
> has
> > > the pitfall to likely require a backport in 3.6 anyway, due to the
> > > versioning policies which can prevent some users to upgrade to a 3.7)
> > > 3. 3.8.0: was the vote, seems the rational was that originally we
> > > targetting mvnw in 3.7 and since we didn't make it 3.8 was used. Have
> to
> > > admit I'm not sure of this reasoning more than that (cause for me if we
> > > don't have a planned feature we can either try to push/wait for it or
> > > postpone it but not skip a version due to that) so if anyone wants to
> > > complete the reasoning here it would be great.
> > >
> > > Indeed my preference is for 3.6.4 which has the most advantages for
> > > everyone and no additional drawbacks compared to 3.7 or 3.8 options
> until
> > > we try to push to get mvnw in which would mean 3.7 becomes more natural
> > > (and likely imply a 3.6.x maintenance version).
> > >
> > > Goal of this thread is to feel the overall trend and see if we can
> refine
> > > the proposals (for example: can we drop 3.8 one and only keep 3.7 and
> 3.6
> > > or - best - can we refine it to a single version after some exchanges).
> > > If we keep a few proposals after some days, what about a vote where the
> > > majority wins - we would just need to define how we count,
> > > bindings/committers/all (my preference being last one indeed)?
> > >
> > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
> > > <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> > > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
> > > https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> > > LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> > > <
> > >
> >
> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > 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]
> >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Next release version: 3.6.4, 3.7.0, 3.8.0 or other

Romain Manni-Bucau
@Jesper: just to refine, it is just a matter of adding a custom
settings.xml for the build/on the CLI (or override it in maven depending
what the org wants) to enable back http so you still don't have to set SSL
on nexus. Does it change your answer since the first point becomes no more
fully accurate with that fact?

Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
<https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
<https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>


Le lun. 29 mars 2021 à 09:23, Som Lima <[hidden email]> a écrit :

> Any way thanks for the cli API
>
> On Mon, 29 Mar 2021, 08:18 Som Lima, <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > When you put a url in a browser and hit enter.
> >
> > IF the url has to travel to a server on the intranet then an algorithm
> > ensuring tight coupling will be executed.
> >
> > IF the url has to travel on the internet to get to a server then a
> > completely different algorithm gets executed.
> >
> > The WAN algorithm relies on CHECKSUM  to ensure data integrity.
> > It is weak and prone to easy vulnerability.  At the very minimum the user
> > needs to implement encryption (HTTPS).
> >
> >
> > The LAN  algorithm  is quite different,
> > there is far more network traffic between two parties to ensure strong
> > secure connection.
> >
> > API developers  and application developers  do not have access to this
> > layer. It is transparent.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 29 Mar 2021, 08:03 Romain Manni-Bucau, <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I kind of agree intranet is as secure as the internet (ie a lot of
> attacks
> >> done last years were done on intranets). yes you are in a local vpc not
> >> accessible from the outside but it is also where hackers try to enter
> >> first
> >> since then it is open bar for them.
> >> That said it is very common to use http as a quick serving too -
> thinking
> >> to trainings and hacking sessions where a tomcat serves a local m2 for
> >> example.
> >> I guess this all lead to the fact we need to support HTTP anyway and
> >> enable/document how to still use it in the coming version (and not
> prevent
> >> it in a hardcoded fashion).
> >> In terms of security it would be left to the user to enable it
> explicitly
> >> -
> >> defaults being secured, exactly as the 0-day vulnerability got fixed in
> >> all
> >> softwares.
> >> Sounds more than relevant to me to enable that case while it is not the
> >> default.
> >>
> >> That said, having this kind of toggle pushes to 3.6.4 more than all
> others
> >> by design then, no?
> >>
> >> Romain Manni-Bucau
> >> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
> >> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> >> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
> >> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> >> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> >> <
> >>
> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Le lun. 29 mars 2021 à 08:51, Som Lima <[hidden email]> a
> écrit
> >> :
> >>
> >> > I thought we were talking about computer programming algorithms.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Social engineering  is outside the scope of the  discussion on the
> >> subject
> >> > of the  algorithm devised in the invisible ( to API developers),
> network
> >> > layer implementation.
> >> >
> >> > The  scope of discussion is that the intranet is a tightly coupled
> comm
> >> > system therefore secure by design.
> >> > Imagine a couple holding each other tightly so no intruder, (third
> >> party)
> >> > can  come in  between and interfere.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Meanwhile the internet  (loosely coupled) due to physical limitations
> >> could
> >> > not be implemented  using the same algorithm.
> >> > It was left to users  to work out the security which can be done using
> >> > encryption (HTTPS) as one means of security. Other strategies are also
> >> > available. Only the CHECKSUM was supplied as means of data integrity
> by
> >> the
> >> > network Gods.
> >> >
> >> > Anybody want to talk about intraprocess (tight coupling) and
> >> Interprocess
> >> > (loose coupling) ?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Sun, 28 Mar 2021, 15:39 Markus KARG, <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Nonsense. It is common sense that most criminal acts are spawned
> from
> >> > > within the local network, due to social engineering.
> >> > > -Markus
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> >> > > Von: Som Lima [mailto:[hidden email]]
> >> > > Gesendet: Sonntag, 28. März 2021 15:06
> >> > > An: Maven Developers List
> >> > > Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Next release version: 3.6.4, 3.7.0, 3.8.0 or
> >> other
> >> > >
> >> > > > BTW there should be an option to still use unsecure http as many
> >> people
> >> > > run http in their LANs.
> >> > >
> >> > > I could be wrong but I think the intranet is a tightly coupled  comm
> >> > system
> >> > > therefore it is secure by design.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > On Sun, 28 Mar 2021, 13:31 Markus KARG, <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > We should not do any tricks or unexpected behavior but just stick
> >> with
> >> > > > SemVer.
> >> > > > If there is a need for a security fix, it has to be 3.6.4 and BTW
> >> there
> >> > > > should be an option to still use unsecure http as many people run
> >> http
> >> > in
> >> > > > their LANs.
> >> > > > If it contains backwards-compatible features, it has to be 3.7.0.
> >> > > > If it breaks backwards-compatibility, it has to be 4.0.0.
> >> > > > In no case it can be 3.8.0.
> >> > > > If mvnw was proposed for 3.7 but is not here now, then we either
> >> have
> >> > to
> >> > > > wait with 3.7.0, or we have to tell people that we move mvnw to
> 3.8
> >> or
> >> > > 4.0.
> >> > > > I do not see a need for any discussion at all, as SemVer is pretty
> >> > clear
> >> > > > about the sole correct answer.
> >> > > > -Markus
> >> > > >
> >> > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> >> > > > Von: Romain Manni-Bucau [mailto:[hidden email]]
> >> > > > Gesendet: Sonntag, 28. März 2021 11:47
> >> > > > An: Maven Developers List
> >> > > > Betreff: [DISCUSS] Next release version: 3.6.4, 3.7.0, 3.8.0 or
> >> other
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Hi all,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Before we reroll the failed 3.8.0 I'd like we discuss openly the
> >> next
> >> > > > versioning since it seems we didn't reach a consensus yet and
> >> trying to
> >> > > not
> >> > > > create too much friction for users and in the community.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > As a reminder the only feature the release will get is to prevent
> >> HTTP
> >> > > repo
> >> > > > (in favor of HTTPS ones). In that regard it is a breaking change
> if
> >> > users
> >> > > > rely on HTTP repo but a security fix (I don't come back on the
> HTTP
> >> ->
> >> > > > HTTPS move IT ecosystem got recently here).
> >> > > >
> >> > > > So it seems there are multiple versioning options:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > 1. 3.6.4: seems natural since it is a security fix, enables
> >> companies
> >> > to
> >> > > > get this fix respecting a project versioning policy without having
> >> to
> >> > > > upgrade and avoids us to have to maintain 3.6 + 3.7/3.8 and soon
> >> 4.x.
> >> > > > Indeed it requires a very well documented paragraph about this
> >> change
> >> > and
> >> > > > how to workaround it (local proxy/mirror is a trivial one for
> >> example)
> >> > > but
> >> > > > it will be the case whatever version we pick anyway IMHO.
> >> > > > 2. 3.7.0: since it is a breaking change it can seem natural too
> (but
> >> > has
> >> > > > the pitfall to likely require a backport in 3.6 anyway, due to the
> >> > > > versioning policies which can prevent some users to upgrade to a
> >> 3.7)
> >> > > > 3. 3.8.0: was the vote, seems the rational was that originally we
> >> > > > targetting mvnw in 3.7 and since we didn't make it 3.8 was used.
> >> Have
> >> > to
> >> > > > admit I'm not sure of this reasoning more than that (cause for me
> >> if we
> >> > > > don't have a planned feature we can either try to push/wait for it
> >> or
> >> > > > postpone it but not skip a version due to that) so if anyone wants
> >> to
> >> > > > complete the reasoning here it would be great.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Indeed my preference is for 3.6.4 which has the most advantages
> for
> >> > > > everyone and no additional drawbacks compared to 3.7 or 3.8
> options
> >> > until
> >> > > > we try to push to get mvnw in which would mean 3.7 becomes more
> >> natural
> >> > > > (and likely imply a 3.6.x maintenance version).
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Goal of this thread is to feel the overall trend and see if we can
> >> > refine
> >> > > > the proposals (for example: can we drop 3.8 one and only keep 3.7
> >> and
> >> > 3.6
> >> > > > or - best - can we refine it to a single version after some
> >> exchanges).
> >> > > > If we keep a few proposals after some days, what about a vote
> where
> >> the
> >> > > > majority wins - we would just need to define how we count,
> >> > > > bindings/committers/all (my preference being last one indeed)?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> >> > > > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
> >> > > > <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> >> > > > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
> >> > > > https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> >> > > > LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> >> > > > <
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > > > 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]
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Next release version: 3.6.4, 3.7.0, 3.8.0 or other

Romain Manni-Bucau
In reply to this post by Hervé BOUTEMY
Ok so seems 3.8.1 gets a lot of votes.
Can we still do a 3.6.4/3.6.3.1 or whatever (3.6 branch is the important
point as explained).

Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
<https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
<https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>


Le mar. 30 mars 2021 à 18:50, Arnaud Héritier <[hidden email]> a
écrit :

> Due to the distribution error, I agree that the next release can only be
> 3.8.1 today
>
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 6:39 PM TheCakeIsNaOH <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am the maintainer of the Maven Chocolatey package.
> >
> > Given that I uploaded a 3.8.0 package after seeing the binaries in the
> > release
> > download area, there are around ~2,400 users which downloaded that
> version
> > of the package.
> >
> > Therefore, on the Chocolatey side of things, it would be best if the next
> > version
> > is something greater than 3.8.0. That way, the people that downloaded the
> > 3.8.0 package would upgrade to the actual release, instead of having to
> > downgrade manually.
> >
> > Regards, TheCakeIsNaOH
> >
> > On 2021/03/28 09:47:11, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > Hi all,>
> > >
> > > Before we reroll the failed 3.8.0 I'd like we discuss openly the next>
> > > versioning since it seems we didn't reach a consensus yet and trying to
> > not>
> > > create too much friction for users and in the community.>
> > >
> > > As a reminder the only feature the release will get is to prevent HTTP
> > repo>
> > > (in favor of HTTPS ones). In that regard it is a breaking change if
> > users>
> > > rely on HTTP repo but a security fix (I don't come back on the HTTP ->>
> > > HTTPS move IT ecosystem got recently here).>
> > >
> > > So it seems there are multiple versioning options:>
> > >
> > > 1. 3.6.4: seems natural since it is a security fix, enables companies
> to>
> > > get this fix respecting a project versioning policy without having to>
> > > upgrade and avoids us to have to maintain 3.6 + 3.7/3.8 and soon 4.x.>
> > > Indeed it requires a very well documented paragraph about this change
> > and>
> > > how to workaround it (local proxy/mirror is a trivial one for example)
> > but>
> > > it will be the case whatever version we pick anyway IMHO.>
> > > 2. 3.7.0: since it is a breaking change it can seem natural too (but
> has>
> > > the pitfall to likely require a backport in 3.6 anyway, due to the>
> > > versioning policies which can prevent some users to upgrade to a 3.7)>
> > > 3. 3.8.0: was the vote, seems the rational was that originally we>
> > > targetting mvnw in 3.7 and since we didn't make it 3.8 was used. Have
> to>
> > > admit I'm not sure of this reasoning more than that (cause for me if
> we>
> > > don't have a planned feature we can either try to push/wait for it or>
> > > postpone it but not skip a version due to that) so if anyone wants to>
> > > complete the reasoning here it would be great.>
> > >
> > > Indeed my preference is for 3.6.4 which has the most advantages for>
> > > everyone and no additional drawbacks compared to 3.7 or 3.8 options
> > until>
> > > we try to push to get mvnw in which would mean 3.7 becomes more
> natural>
> > > (and likely imply a 3.6.x maintenance version).>
> > >
> > > Goal of this thread is to feel the overall trend and see if we can
> > refine>
> > > the proposals (for example: can we drop 3.8 one and only keep 3.7 and
> > 3.6>
> > > or - best - can we refine it to a single version after some
> exchanges).>
> > > If we keep a few proposals after some days, what about a vote where
> the>
> > > majority wins - we would just need to define how we count,>
> > > bindings/committers/all (my preference being last one indeed)?>
> > >
> > > Romain Manni-Bucau>
> > > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog>
> > > <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog>
> > > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
> > https://github.com/rmannibucau> |>
> > > LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book>
> > > <
> >
> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
> > >>
> >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Arnaud Héritier
> Twitter/Skype : aheritier
>