Re: Update versions of all plugins in default-bindings.xml

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
10 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Update versions of all plugins in default-bindings.xml

Hervé BOUTEMY
Le vendredi 11 janvier 2019, 12:55:03 CET Tibor Digana a écrit :
> ok, Herve, the fact is that these plugins have been updated from time to
> time.
yes, we did it in the past (years ago, look at the history) and went to the
conclusion we should not do that to improve reproducibility, unless there is a
strong reason to do it sometimes on some specific plugins
= what I'm trying to explain, for the moment without much success


What we could do would be to create a new POM to use as parent POM, that would
define the versions of every plugin from the default lifecycles: this would
avoid to have everybody to write the full list of plugins (which is a pain: I
know because in MARCHETYPES-54 [1] I added the list in Maven Archetypes...)
We could name it "maven-default-plugins", or if somebody has a better idea.
This way, changing plugins versions would not be tied to changing Maven
version

WDYT?

Regards,

Hervé

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MARCHETYPES-54

> How can we be on safe side with these updates? What is mandatory to do for
> such upgrade?
>
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 7:41 AM Hervé BOUTEMY <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > As I wrote in many Jira issues over years on this topic, I'm not in favor
> > of
> > that
> >
> > To me, staying with the same default plugins versions from Maven version
> > to
> > Maven version is a feature: nobody should expect to change his Maven
> > version
> > to change the plugins versions
> > The best practice is to define plugins versions in your pom.xml (or
> > parent).
> > Getting very old versions of plugins by default is the best additional
> > feature
> > we have after the WARN "plugin version not defined"
> >
> > Then IMHO, upgrading default plugins versions is a bad idea, is a bad
> > message
> > = "you can continue to ignore the WARN on plugins versions and still get
> > newest and latest plugins"
> >
> > this leads IMHO to one (bad) reason for people to require Maven Wrapper
> >
> >
> > I know, this is counter intuitive, that's why it is required to really
> > take a
> > moment to think about it
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Hervé
> >
> > Le jeudi 10 janvier 2019, 17:08:57 CET Tibor Digana a écrit :
> > > Why we use old versions in default-bindings.xml?
> > > Can we update all versions in 3.6.1 release?
> > >
> > > Here is MNG-6557 which is related to Surefire but I guess this Jira
> > > issue
> > > can be freely related to all plugins.
> > >
> > > WDYT?
> > > Any objections to update all plugins and assign this issue in 3.6.1?
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > Tibor
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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: Update versions of all plugins in default-bindings.xml

Robert Scholte-8
Just wondering, can this be solved by an extension?

So instead of changing this in Maven Core itself, people can add an  
extension to Maven with the latest+stable releases.

Hervé and I already discovered that current focus is mainly on plugins  
right now. We should also work on extensions.

Robert

On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 15:37:23 +0100, Hervé BOUTEMY <[hidden email]>  
wrote:

> Le vendredi 11 janvier 2019, 12:55:03 CET Tibor Digana a écrit :
>> ok, Herve, the fact is that these plugins have been updated from time to
>> time.
> yes, we did it in the past (years ago, look at the history) and went to  
> the
> conclusion we should not do that to improve reproducibility, unless  
> there is a
> strong reason to do it sometimes on some specific plugins
> = what I'm trying to explain, for the moment without much success
>
>
> What we could do would be to create a new POM to use as parent POM, that  
> would
> define the versions of every plugin from the default lifecycles: this  
> would
> avoid to have everybody to write the full list of plugins (which is a  
> pain: I
> know because in MARCHETYPES-54 [1] I added the list in Maven  
> Archetypes...)
> We could name it "maven-default-plugins", or if somebody has a better  
> idea.
> This way, changing plugins versions would not be tied to changing Maven
> version
>
> WDYT?
>
> Regards,
>
> Hervé
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MARCHETYPES-54
>
>> How can we be on safe side with these updates? What is mandatory to do  
>> for
>> such upgrade?
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 7:41 AM Hervé BOUTEMY <[hidden email]>  
>> wrote:
>> > As I wrote in many Jira issues over years on this topic, I'm not in  
>> favor
>> > of
>> > that
>> >
>> > To me, staying with the same default plugins versions from Maven  
>> version
>> > to
>> > Maven version is a feature: nobody should expect to change his Maven
>> > version
>> > to change the plugins versions
>> > The best practice is to define plugins versions in your pom.xml (or
>> > parent).
>> > Getting very old versions of plugins by default is the best additional
>> > feature
>> > we have after the WARN "plugin version not defined"
>> >
>> > Then IMHO, upgrading default plugins versions is a bad idea, is a bad
>> > message
>> > = "you can continue to ignore the WARN on plugins versions and still  
>> get
>> > newest and latest plugins"
>> >
>> > this leads IMHO to one (bad) reason for people to require Maven  
>> Wrapper
>> >
>> >
>> > I know, this is counter intuitive, that's why it is required to really
>> > take a
>> > moment to think about it
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> > Hervé
>> >
>> > Le jeudi 10 janvier 2019, 17:08:57 CET Tibor Digana a écrit :
>> > > Why we use old versions in default-bindings.xml?
>> > > Can we update all versions in 3.6.1 release?
>> > >
>> > > Here is MNG-6557 which is related to Surefire but I guess this Jira
>> > > issue
>> > > can be freely related to all plugins.
>> > >
>> > > WDYT?
>> > > Any objections to update all plugins and assign this issue in 3.6.1?
>> > >
>> > > Cheers
>> > > Tibor
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > 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]

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Update versions of all plugins in default-bindings.xml

Bernd Eckenfels
I think that’s a real bad idea if you have to do local modifications to get to a working build environment. Maven is all about not requiring you to do that (anymore). So even requiring a certain Maven Version does not fit in that pattern (although unavoidable if you do not want to work with wrappers).

So this means: keep old standard versions and overwrite them always in poms. (And it means the amount of default versions should be reduced or at least not add new ones)

Gruss
Bernd
--
http://bernd.eckenfels.net

________________________________
Von: Robert Scholte <[hidden email]>
Gesendet: Samstag, Januar 12, 2019 5:07 PM
An: Maven Developers List
Betreff: Re: Update versions of all plugins in default-bindings.xml

I had chats with both Adam Bien and Sebastian Daschner asking for a better
way to work with a simple high-speed throw-away development pom.

They are both working a lot with Java EE applications and want to rely on
defaults as much as possible.
So in a way they don't care about plugin versions.
They only case about things in poms that does matter (unique to that
project): dependencies
However, with Java 9+ stuff they are forced to specify plugins with more
recent versions right now.

So here comes the idea of extensions: you can put it in your maven/lib/ext
ONCE and your pom is again as clean as possible.

This seems to be a common way of work for some kind of developers and it
would make sense if Maven could support this.

To me default plugin versions are bound to a minor Maven release, not a
major.
When starting with Maven and create your first hello world, it should work
out of the box.
Right now if you are using Java 11, you'll probably hit issues because
some defaults won't work anymore.
That's a bad thing to me and a valid reason to upgrade the plugins.

I do understand Hervé concerns. We should motivate people to lock their
plugins in their pom.
Most of all the packaging-plugin is important. AFAIK all 3.0+ versions
contain plugin bindings, in which case it should be good enough if that
plugin is at least specified.

thanks,
Robert

On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 16:24:31 +0100, Hervé BOUTEMY <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> original idea, let's try to evaluate :)
>
> IMHO this could work for packaging plugins in default lifecycle, that are
> defined in default-bindings.xml, but would not for other lifecycles that
> are
> configured in components.xml (without copy/pasting content not related to
> plugins)
>
> I don't think an extension would be easier to use than a pom.xml, it's
> even
> IMHO worse since you have to create a new file in a new directory.
>
> one question is: is there a use case that an extension would permit that
> a
> parent pom would not?
> the only case I see is if a user does not want to change his parent pom
> (or
> cannot): since we don't have "pluginManagement import" (like we have for
> dependency management).
>
>
> I think for the moment that a parent pom would be more classical, easier
> to
> explain: I don't really see a clear benefit to do the job as an extension
> instead, this would IMHO make the change harder for users
>
> Regards,
>
> Hervé
>
> Le samedi 12 janvier 2019, 15:42:57 CET Robert Scholte a écrit :
>> Just wondering, can this be solved by an extension?
>>
>> So instead of changing this in Maven Core itself, people can add an
>> extension to Maven with the latest+stable releases.
>>
>> Hervé and I already discovered that current focus is mainly on plugins
>> right now. We should also work on extensions.
>>
>> Robert
>>
>> On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 15:37:23 +0100, Hervé BOUTEMY
>> <[hidden email]>
>>
>> wrote:
>> > Le vendredi 11 janvier 2019, 12:55:03 CET Tibor Digana a écrit :
>> >> ok, Herve, the fact is that these plugins have been updated from
>> time to
>> >> time.
>> >
>> > yes, we did it in the past (years ago, look at the history) and went
>> to
>> > the
>> > conclusion we should not do that to improve reproducibility, unless
>> > there is a
>> > strong reason to do it sometimes on some specific plugins
>> > = what I'm trying to explain, for the moment without much success
>> >
>> >
>> > What we could do would be to create a new POM to use as parent POM,
>> that
>> > would
>> > define the versions of every plugin from the default lifecycles: this
>> > would
>> > avoid to have everybody to write the full list of plugins (which is a
>> > pain: I
>> > know because in MARCHETYPES-54 [1] I added the list in Maven
>> > Archetypes...)
>> > We could name it "maven-default-plugins", or if somebody has a better
>> > idea.
>> > This way, changing plugins versions would not be tied to changing
>> Maven
>> > version
>> >
>> > WDYT?
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> > Hervé
>> >
>> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MARCHETYPES-54
>> >
>> >> How can we be on safe side with these updates? What is mandatory to
>> do
>> >> for
>> >> such upgrade?
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 7:41 AM Hervé BOUTEMY <[hidden email]>
>> >>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > As I wrote in many Jira issues over years on this topic, I'm not in
>> >>
>> >> favor
>> >>
>> >> > of
>> >> > that
>> >> >
>> >> > To me, staying with the same default plugins versions from Maven
>> >>
>> >> version
>> >>
>> >> > to
>> >> > Maven version is a feature: nobody should expect to change his
>> Maven
>> >> > version
>> >> > to change the plugins versions
>> >> > The best practice is to define plugins versions in your pom.xml (or
>> >> > parent).
>> >> > Getting very old versions of plugins by default is the best
>> additional
>> >> > feature
>> >> > we have after the WARN "plugin version not defined"
>> >> >
>> >> > Then IMHO, upgrading default plugins versions is a bad idea, is a
>> bad
>> >> > message
>> >> > = "you can continue to ignore the WARN on plugins versions and
>> still
>> >>
>> >> get
>> >>
>> >> > newest and latest plugins"
>> >> >
>> >> > this leads IMHO to one (bad) reason for people to require Maven
>> >>
>> >> Wrapper
>> >>
>> >> > I know, this is counter intuitive, that's why it is required to
>> really
>> >> > take a
>> >> > moment to think about it
>> >> >
>> >> > Regards,
>> >> >
>> >> > Hervé
>> >> >
>> >> > Le jeudi 10 janvier 2019, 17:08:57 CET Tibor Digana a écrit :
>> >> > > Why we use old versions in default-bindings.xml?
>> >> > > Can we update all versions in 3.6.1 release?
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Here is MNG-6557 which is related to Surefire but I guess this
>> Jira
>> >> > > issue
>> >> > > can be freely related to all plugins.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > WDYT?
>> >> > > Any objections to update all plugins and assign this issue in
>> 3.6.1?
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Cheers
>> >> > > Tibor
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> > 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]
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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]

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Update versions of all plugins in default-bindings.xml

Tibor Digana
I have a strong reason to update Surefire due to new JRE versions have been
updated too many times last two years.
They required a fix done within a few days and some of them are shaking on
the chair...
Our Maven Core is stable and Java 9+ ready but the obsolete plugins are not.
I want only the same compatibility with default plugins because people do
not see these plugins as a distinct community. They are both Maven and
plugins from us Apache, so they most probably would expect it consistent
altogether.
Makes sense?

On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 7:24 PM Bernd Eckenfels <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> I think that’s a real bad idea if you have to do local modifications to
> get to a working build environment. Maven is all about not requiring you to
> do that (anymore). So even requiring a certain Maven Version does not fit
> in that pattern (although unavoidable if you do not want to work with
> wrappers).
>
> So this means: keep old standard versions and overwrite them always in
> poms. (And it means the amount of default versions should be reduced or at
> least not add new ones)
>
> Gruss
> Bernd
> --
> http://bernd.eckenfels.net
>
> ________________________________
> Von: Robert Scholte <[hidden email]>
> Gesendet: Samstag, Januar 12, 2019 5:07 PM
> An: Maven Developers List
> Betreff: Re: Update versions of all plugins in default-bindings.xml
>
> I had chats with both Adam Bien and Sebastian Daschner asking for a better
> way to work with a simple high-speed throw-away development pom.
>
> They are both working a lot with Java EE applications and want to rely on
> defaults as much as possible.
> So in a way they don't care about plugin versions.
> They only case about things in poms that does matter (unique to that
> project): dependencies
> However, with Java 9+ stuff they are forced to specify plugins with more
> recent versions right now.
>
> So here comes the idea of extensions: you can put it in your maven/lib/ext
> ONCE and your pom is again as clean as possible.
>
> This seems to be a common way of work for some kind of developers and it
> would make sense if Maven could support this.
>
> To me default plugin versions are bound to a minor Maven release, not a
> major.
> When starting with Maven and create your first hello world, it should work
> out of the box.
> Right now if you are using Java 11, you'll probably hit issues because
> some defaults won't work anymore.
> That's a bad thing to me and a valid reason to upgrade the plugins.
>
> I do understand Hervé concerns. We should motivate people to lock their
> plugins in their pom.
> Most of all the packaging-plugin is important. AFAIK all 3.0+ versions
> contain plugin bindings, in which case it should be good enough if that
> plugin is at least specified.
>
> thanks,
> Robert
>
> On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 16:24:31 +0100, Hervé BOUTEMY <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > original idea, let's try to evaluate :)
> >
> > IMHO this could work for packaging plugins in default lifecycle, that are
> > defined in default-bindings.xml, but would not for other lifecycles that
> > are
> > configured in components.xml (without copy/pasting content not related to
> > plugins)
> >
> > I don't think an extension would be easier to use than a pom.xml, it's
> > even
> > IMHO worse since you have to create a new file in a new directory.
> >
> > one question is: is there a use case that an extension would permit that
> > a
> > parent pom would not?
> > the only case I see is if a user does not want to change his parent pom
> > (or
> > cannot): since we don't have "pluginManagement import" (like we have for
> > dependency management).
> >
> >
> > I think for the moment that a parent pom would be more classical, easier
> > to
> > explain: I don't really see a clear benefit to do the job as an extension
> > instead, this would IMHO make the change harder for users
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Hervé
> >
> > Le samedi 12 janvier 2019, 15:42:57 CET Robert Scholte a écrit :
> >> Just wondering, can this be solved by an extension?
> >>
> >> So instead of changing this in Maven Core itself, people can add an
> >> extension to Maven with the latest+stable releases.
> >>
> >> Hervé and I already discovered that current focus is mainly on plugins
> >> right now. We should also work on extensions.
> >>
> >> Robert
> >>
> >> On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 15:37:23 +0100, Hervé BOUTEMY
> >> <[hidden email]>
> >>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Le vendredi 11 janvier 2019, 12:55:03 CET Tibor Digana a écrit :
> >> >> ok, Herve, the fact is that these plugins have been updated from
> >> time to
> >> >> time.
> >> >
> >> > yes, we did it in the past (years ago, look at the history) and went
> >> to
> >> > the
> >> > conclusion we should not do that to improve reproducibility, unless
> >> > there is a
> >> > strong reason to do it sometimes on some specific plugins
> >> > = what I'm trying to explain, for the moment without much success
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > What we could do would be to create a new POM to use as parent POM,
> >> that
> >> > would
> >> > define the versions of every plugin from the default lifecycles: this
> >> > would
> >> > avoid to have everybody to write the full list of plugins (which is a
> >> > pain: I
> >> > know because in MARCHETYPES-54 [1] I added the list in Maven
> >> > Archetypes...)
> >> > We could name it "maven-default-plugins", or if somebody has a better
> >> > idea.
> >> > This way, changing plugins versions would not be tied to changing
> >> Maven
> >> > version
> >> >
> >> > WDYT?
> >> >
> >> > Regards,
> >> >
> >> > Hervé
> >> >
> >> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MARCHETYPES-54
> >> >
> >> >> How can we be on safe side with these updates? What is mandatory to
> >> do
> >> >> for
> >> >> such upgrade?
> >> >>
> >> >> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 7:41 AM Hervé BOUTEMY <[hidden email]
> >
> >> >>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> > As I wrote in many Jira issues over years on this topic, I'm not in
> >> >>
> >> >> favor
> >> >>
> >> >> > of
> >> >> > that
> >> >> >
> >> >> > To me, staying with the same default plugins versions from Maven
> >> >>
> >> >> version
> >> >>
> >> >> > to
> >> >> > Maven version is a feature: nobody should expect to change his
> >> Maven
> >> >> > version
> >> >> > to change the plugins versions
> >> >> > The best practice is to define plugins versions in your pom.xml (or
> >> >> > parent).
> >> >> > Getting very old versions of plugins by default is the best
> >> additional
> >> >> > feature
> >> >> > we have after the WARN "plugin version not defined"
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Then IMHO, upgrading default plugins versions is a bad idea, is a
> >> bad
> >> >> > message
> >> >> > = "you can continue to ignore the WARN on plugins versions and
> >> still
> >> >>
> >> >> get
> >> >>
> >> >> > newest and latest plugins"
> >> >> >
> >> >> > this leads IMHO to one (bad) reason for people to require Maven
> >> >>
> >> >> Wrapper
> >> >>
> >> >> > I know, this is counter intuitive, that's why it is required to
> >> really
> >> >> > take a
> >> >> > moment to think about it
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Regards,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Hervé
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Le jeudi 10 janvier 2019, 17:08:57 CET Tibor Digana a écrit :
> >> >> > > Why we use old versions in default-bindings.xml?
> >> >> > > Can we update all versions in 3.6.1 release?
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Here is MNG-6557 which is related to Surefire but I guess this
> >> Jira
> >> >> > > issue
> >> >> > > can be freely related to all plugins.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > WDYT?
> >> >> > > Any objections to update all plugins and assign this issue in
> >> 3.6.1?
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Cheers
> >> >> > > Tibor
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >> > 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]
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> 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]
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Update versions of all plugins in default-bindings.xml

stephenconnolly
The original plan was to make plugin version mandatory. Perhaps 3.7.0 is
the time to do that, with a CLI option (to be removed after 3.7.x) to pull
in the 3.6.x default versions if your pom is missing plugin versions.

The warning has been there long enough. Let’s pull the trigger.

On Sat 12 Jan 2019 at 21:34, Tibor Digana <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I have a strong reason to update Surefire due to new JRE versions have been
> updated too many times last two years.
> They required a fix done within a few days and some of them are shaking on
> the chair...
> Our Maven Core is stable and Java 9+ ready but the obsolete plugins are
> not.
> I want only the same compatibility with default plugins because people do
> not see these plugins as a distinct community. They are both Maven and
> plugins from us Apache, so they most probably would expect it consistent
> altogether.
> Makes sense?
>
> On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 7:24 PM Bernd Eckenfels <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > I think that’s a real bad idea if you have to do local modifications to
> > get to a working build environment. Maven is all about not requiring you
> to
> > do that (anymore). So even requiring a certain Maven Version does not fit
> > in that pattern (although unavoidable if you do not want to work with
> > wrappers).
> >
> > So this means: keep old standard versions and overwrite them always in
> > poms. (And it means the amount of default versions should be reduced or
> at
> > least not add new ones)
> >
> > Gruss
> > Bernd
> > --
> > http://bernd.eckenfels.net
> >
> > ________________________________
> > Von: Robert Scholte <[hidden email]>
> > Gesendet: Samstag, Januar 12, 2019 5:07 PM
> > An: Maven Developers List
> > Betreff: Re: Update versions of all plugins in default-bindings.xml
> >
> > I had chats with both Adam Bien and Sebastian Daschner asking for a
> better
> > way to work with a simple high-speed throw-away development pom.
> >
> > They are both working a lot with Java EE applications and want to rely on
> > defaults as much as possible.
> > So in a way they don't care about plugin versions.
> > They only case about things in poms that does matter (unique to that
> > project): dependencies
> > However, with Java 9+ stuff they are forced to specify plugins with more
> > recent versions right now.
> >
> > So here comes the idea of extensions: you can put it in your
> maven/lib/ext
> > ONCE and your pom is again as clean as possible.
> >
> > This seems to be a common way of work for some kind of developers and it
> > would make sense if Maven could support this.
> >
> > To me default plugin versions are bound to a minor Maven release, not a
> > major.
> > When starting with Maven and create your first hello world, it should
> work
> > out of the box.
> > Right now if you are using Java 11, you'll probably hit issues because
> > some defaults won't work anymore.
> > That's a bad thing to me and a valid reason to upgrade the plugins.
> >
> > I do understand Hervé concerns. We should motivate people to lock their
> > plugins in their pom.
> > Most of all the packaging-plugin is important. AFAIK all 3.0+ versions
> > contain plugin bindings, in which case it should be good enough if that
> > plugin is at least specified.
> >
> > thanks,
> > Robert
> >
> > On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 16:24:31 +0100, Hervé BOUTEMY <[hidden email]
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > original idea, let's try to evaluate :)
> > >
> > > IMHO this could work for packaging plugins in default lifecycle, that
> are
> > > defined in default-bindings.xml, but would not for other lifecycles
> that
> > > are
> > > configured in components.xml (without copy/pasting content not related
> to
> > > plugins)
> > >
> > > I don't think an extension would be easier to use than a pom.xml, it's
> > > even
> > > IMHO worse since you have to create a new file in a new directory.
> > >
> > > one question is: is there a use case that an extension would permit
> that
> > > a
> > > parent pom would not?
> > > the only case I see is if a user does not want to change his parent pom
> > > (or
> > > cannot): since we don't have "pluginManagement import" (like we have
> for
> > > dependency management).
> > >
> > >
> > > I think for the moment that a parent pom would be more classical,
> easier
> > > to
> > > explain: I don't really see a clear benefit to do the job as an
> extension
> > > instead, this would IMHO make the change harder for users
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Hervé
> > >
> > > Le samedi 12 janvier 2019, 15:42:57 CET Robert Scholte a écrit :
> > >> Just wondering, can this be solved by an extension?
> > >>
> > >> So instead of changing this in Maven Core itself, people can add an
> > >> extension to Maven with the latest+stable releases.
> > >>
> > >> Hervé and I already discovered that current focus is mainly on plugins
> > >> right now. We should also work on extensions.
> > >>
> > >> Robert
> > >>
> > >> On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 15:37:23 +0100, Hervé BOUTEMY
> > >> <[hidden email]>
> > >>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> > Le vendredi 11 janvier 2019, 12:55:03 CET Tibor Digana a écrit :
> > >> >> ok, Herve, the fact is that these plugins have been updated from
> > >> time to
> > >> >> time.
> > >> >
> > >> > yes, we did it in the past (years ago, look at the history) and went
> > >> to
> > >> > the
> > >> > conclusion we should not do that to improve reproducibility, unless
> > >> > there is a
> > >> > strong reason to do it sometimes on some specific plugins
> > >> > = what I'm trying to explain, for the moment without much success
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > What we could do would be to create a new POM to use as parent POM,
> > >> that
> > >> > would
> > >> > define the versions of every plugin from the default lifecycles:
> this
> > >> > would
> > >> > avoid to have everybody to write the full list of plugins (which is
> a
> > >> > pain: I
> > >> > know because in MARCHETYPES-54 [1] I added the list in Maven
> > >> > Archetypes...)
> > >> > We could name it "maven-default-plugins", or if somebody has a
> better
> > >> > idea.
> > >> > This way, changing plugins versions would not be tied to changing
> > >> Maven
> > >> > version
> > >> >
> > >> > WDYT?
> > >> >
> > >> > Regards,
> > >> >
> > >> > Hervé
> > >> >
> > >> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MARCHETYPES-54
> > >> >
> > >> >> How can we be on safe side with these updates? What is mandatory to
> > >> do
> > >> >> for
> > >> >> such upgrade?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 7:41 AM Hervé BOUTEMY <
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > >> >>
> > >> >> wrote:
> > >> >> > As I wrote in many Jira issues over years on this topic, I'm not
> in
> > >> >>
> > >> >> favor
> > >> >>
> > >> >> > of
> > >> >> > that
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > To me, staying with the same default plugins versions from Maven
> > >> >>
> > >> >> version
> > >> >>
> > >> >> > to
> > >> >> > Maven version is a feature: nobody should expect to change his
> > >> Maven
> > >> >> > version
> > >> >> > to change the plugins versions
> > >> >> > The best practice is to define plugins versions in your pom.xml
> (or
> > >> >> > parent).
> > >> >> > Getting very old versions of plugins by default is the best
> > >> additional
> > >> >> > feature
> > >> >> > we have after the WARN "plugin version not defined"
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Then IMHO, upgrading default plugins versions is a bad idea, is a
> > >> bad
> > >> >> > message
> > >> >> > = "you can continue to ignore the WARN on plugins versions and
> > >> still
> > >> >>
> > >> >> get
> > >> >>
> > >> >> > newest and latest plugins"
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > this leads IMHO to one (bad) reason for people to require Maven
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Wrapper
> > >> >>
> > >> >> > I know, this is counter intuitive, that's why it is required to
> > >> really
> > >> >> > take a
> > >> >> > moment to think about it
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Regards,
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Hervé
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Le jeudi 10 janvier 2019, 17:08:57 CET Tibor Digana a écrit :
> > >> >> > > Why we use old versions in default-bindings.xml?
> > >> >> > > Can we update all versions in 3.6.1 release?
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > Here is MNG-6557 which is related to Surefire but I guess this
> > >> Jira
> > >> >> > > issue
> > >> >> > > can be freely related to all plugins.
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > WDYT?
> > >> >> > > Any objections to update all plugins and assign this issue in
> > >> 3.6.1?
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > Cheers
> > >> >> > > Tibor
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> >> > 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]
> > >>
> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> 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]
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >
> >
>
--
Sent from my phone
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Update versions of all plugins in default-bindings.xml

Robert Scholte-8
This is indeed a good approach.
The first group doesn't care about this warning, the second one should.

Hervé, can you confirm that in case of *only* specifying the latest  
maven-jar-plugin or maven-war-plugin or other packaging plugin, you won't  
get these warnings.
It really matters where the default lifecycle bindings are comings from:  
maven-core or packaging plugin.

All this is an interesting feature worth for 3.7.0

thanks,
Robert

On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 04:39:15 +0100, Hervé BOUTEMY <[hidden email]>  
wrote:

> we have 2 opposite objectives:
> - make default near-empty pom work at best,
> - but force people to have defined plugins versions (then not really  
> empty pom) to get stable build
>
> and I checked about the warning message: I was wrong, there is no  
> warning message when plugins without versions are injected by default  
> lifecycle bindings
>
> Just test for yourself following pom.xml from any beginner:
>   <project>
>     <modelVersion>4.0.0</modelVersion>
>     <groupId>com.mycompany.app</groupId>
>     <artifactId>my-app</artifactId>
>     <version>1.0-SNAPSHOT</version>
>   </project>
>
> it works = what we expect to ease newcomers experience
> but there is no warning...
>
> IMHO, this is where we need to improve the tool, by adding a warning:
> I worked on a PoC of DefaultLifecycleBindingsInjector improvement that  
> displays:
> [WARNING]
> [WARNING] Some problems were encountered while building the effective  
> model for com.mycompany.app:my-app:jar:1.0-SNAPSHOT
> [WARNING] Using default plugins versions from bindings:  
> [org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-clean-plugin,  
> org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-install-plugin,  
> org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-resources-plugin,  
> org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-surefire-plugin,  
> org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-compiler-plugin,  
> org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-jar-plugin,  
> org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-deploy-plugin,  
> org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-site-plugin]
> [WARNING]
> [WARNING] It is highly recommended to fix these problems because they  
> threaten the stability of your build.
> [WARNING]
> [WARNING] For this reason, future Maven versions might no longer support  
> building such malformed projects.
> [WARNING]
>
> With this warning, and a parent pom to have an easy fix (instead of 8  
> plugins versions definition), IMHO, we have what we strongly need.
>
> And even better, with this warning in place to avoid people to continue  
> to rely on default plugins versions (because of the nasty warning), I  
> could find upgrading default plugins versions not an issue any more!!!
>
> Should we try to go this route?
>
> Regards,
>
> Hervé
>
> Le dimanche 13 janvier 2019, 00:15:38 CET Stephen Connolly a écrit :
>> The original plan was to make plugin version mandatory. Perhaps 3.7.0 is
>> the time to do that, with a CLI option (to be removed after 3.7.x) to  
>> pull
>> in the 3.6.x default versions if your pom is missing plugin versions.
>>
>> The warning has been there long enough. Let’s pull the trigger.
>>
>> On Sat 12 Jan 2019 at 21:34, Tibor Digana <[hidden email]>  
>> wrote:
>> > I have a strong reason to update Surefire due to new JRE versions have
>> > been
>> > updated too many times last two years.
>> > They required a fix done within a few days and some of them are  
>> shaking on
>> > the chair...
>> > Our Maven Core is stable and Java 9+ ready but the obsolete plugins  
>> are
>> > not.
>> > I want only the same compatibility with default plugins because  
>> people do
>> > not see these plugins as a distinct community. They are both Maven and
>> > plugins from us Apache, so they most probably would expect it  
>> consistent
>> > altogether.
>> > Makes sense?
>> >
>> > On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 7:24 PM Bernd Eckenfels  
>> <[hidden email]>
>> >
>> > wrote:
>> > > I think that’s a real bad idea if you have to do local  
>> modifications to
>> > > get to a working build environment. Maven is all about not  
>> requiring you
>> >
>> > to
>> >
>> > > do that (anymore). So even requiring a certain Maven Version does  
>> not
>> > > fit
>> > > in that pattern (although unavoidable if you do not want to work  
>> with
>> > > wrappers).
>> > >
>> > > So this means: keep old standard versions and overwrite them always  
>> in
>> > > poms. (And it means the amount of default versions should be  
>> reduced or
>> >
>> > at
>> >
>> > > least not add new ones)
>> > >
>> > > Gruss
>> > > Bernd
>> > > --
>> > > http://bernd.eckenfels.net
>> > >
>> > > ________________________________
>> > > Von: Robert Scholte <[hidden email]>
>> > > Gesendet: Samstag, Januar 12, 2019 5:07 PM
>> > > An: Maven Developers List
>> > > Betreff: Re: Update versions of all plugins in default-bindings.xml
>> > >
>> > > I had chats with both Adam Bien and Sebastian Daschner asking for a
>> >
>> > better
>> >
>> > > way to work with a simple high-speed throw-away development pom.
>> > >
>> > > They are both working a lot with Java EE applications and want to  
>> rely
>> > > on
>> > > defaults as much as possible.
>> > > So in a way they don't care about plugin versions.
>> > > They only case about things in poms that does matter (unique to that
>> > > project): dependencies
>> > > However, with Java 9+ stuff they are forced to specify plugins with  
>> more
>> > > recent versions right now.
>> > >
>> > > So here comes the idea of extensions: you can put it in your
>> >
>> > maven/lib/ext
>> >
>> > > ONCE and your pom is again as clean as possible.
>> > >
>> > > This seems to be a common way of work for some kind of developers  
>> and it
>> > > would make sense if Maven could support this.
>> > >
>> > > To me default plugin versions are bound to a minor Maven release,  
>> not a
>> > > major.
>> > > When starting with Maven and create your first hello world, it  
>> should
>> >
>> > work
>> >
>> > > out of the box.
>> > > Right now if you are using Java 11, you'll probably hit issues  
>> because
>> > > some defaults won't work anymore.
>> > > That's a bad thing to me and a valid reason to upgrade the plugins.
>> > >
>> > > I do understand Hervé concerns. We should motivate people to lock  
>> their
>> > > plugins in their pom.
>> > > Most of all the packaging-plugin is important. AFAIK all 3.0+  
>> versions
>> > > contain plugin bindings, in which case it should be good enough if  
>> that
>> > > plugin is at least specified.
>> > >
>> > > thanks,
>> > > Robert
>> > >
>> > > On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 16:24:31 +0100, Hervé BOUTEMY  
>> <[hidden email]
>> > >
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > original idea, let's try to evaluate :)
>> > > >
>> > > > IMHO this could work for packaging plugins in default lifecycle,  
>> that
>> >
>> > are
>> >
>> > > > defined in default-bindings.xml, but would not for other  
>> lifecycles
>> >
>> > that
>> >
>> > > > are
>> > > > configured in components.xml (without copy/pasting content not  
>> related
>> >
>> > to
>> >
>> > > > plugins)
>> > > >
>> > > > I don't think an extension would be easier to use than a pom.xml,  
>> it's
>> > > > even
>> > > > IMHO worse since you have to create a new file in a new directory.
>> > > >
>> > > > one question is: is there a use case that an extension would  
>> permit
>> >
>> > that
>> >
>> > > > a
>> > > > parent pom would not?
>> > > > the only case I see is if a user does not want to change his  
>> parent
>> > > > pom
>> > > > (or
>> > > > cannot): since we don't have "pluginManagement import" (like we  
>> have
>> >
>> > for
>> >
>> > > > dependency management).
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > I think for the moment that a parent pom would be more classical,
>> >
>> > easier
>> >
>> > > > to
>> > > > explain: I don't really see a clear benefit to do the job as an
>> >
>> > extension
>> >
>> > > > instead, this would IMHO make the change harder for users
>> > > >
>> > > > Regards,
>> > > >
>> > > > Hervé
>> > > >
>> > > > Le samedi 12 janvier 2019, 15:42:57 CET Robert Scholte a écrit :
>> > > >> Just wondering, can this be solved by an extension?
>> > > >>
>> > > >> So instead of changing this in Maven Core itself, people can add  
>> an
>> > > >> extension to Maven with the latest+stable releases.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Hervé and I already discovered that current focus is mainly on
>> > > >> plugins
>> > > >> right now. We should also work on extensions.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Robert
>> > > >>
>> > > >> On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 15:37:23 +0100, Hervé BOUTEMY
>> > > >> <[hidden email]>
>> > > >>
>> > > >> wrote:
>> > > >> > Le vendredi 11 janvier 2019, 12:55:03 CET Tibor Digana a écrit  
>> :
>> > > >> >> ok, Herve, the fact is that these plugins have been updated  
>> from
>> > > >>
>> > > >> time to
>> > > >>
>> > > >> >> time.
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > yes, we did it in the past (years ago, look at the history) and
>> > > >> > went
>> > > >>
>> > > >> to
>> > > >>
>> > > >> > the
>> > > >> > conclusion we should not do that to improve reproducibility,  
>> unless
>> > > >> > there is a
>> > > >> > strong reason to do it sometimes on some specific plugins
>> > > >> > = what I'm trying to explain, for the moment without much  
>> success
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > What we could do would be to create a new POM to use as parent  
>> POM,
>> > > >>
>> > > >> that
>> > > >>
>> > > >> > would
>> >
>> > > >> > define the versions of every plugin from the default  
>> lifecycles:
>> > this
>> >
>> > > >> > would
>> > > >> > avoid to have everybody to write the full list of plugins  
>> (which is
>> >
>> > a
>> >
>> > > >> > pain: I
>> > > >> > know because in MARCHETYPES-54 [1] I added the list in Maven
>> > > >> > Archetypes...)
>> > > >> > We could name it "maven-default-plugins", or if somebody has a
>> >
>> > better
>> >
>> > > >> > idea.
>> > > >> > This way, changing plugins versions would not be tied to  
>> changing
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Maven
>> > > >>
>> > > >> > version
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > WDYT?
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > Regards,
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > Hervé
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MARCHETYPES-54
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >> How can we be on safe side with these updates? What is  
>> mandatory
>> > > >> >> to
>> > > >>
>> > > >> do
>> > > >>
>> > > >> >> for
>> > > >> >> such upgrade?
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 7:41 AM Hervé BOUTEMY <
>> >
>> > [hidden email]
>> >
>> > > >> >> wrote:
>> > > >> >> > As I wrote in many Jira issues over years on this topic,  
>> I'm not
>> >
>> > in
>> >
>> > > >> >> favor
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> > of
>> > > >> >> > that
>> > > >> >> >
>> > > >> >> > To me, staying with the same default plugins versions from  
>> Maven
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> version
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> > to
>> > > >> >> > Maven version is a feature: nobody should expect to change  
>> his
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Maven
>> > > >>
>> > > >> >> > version
>> > > >> >> > to change the plugins versions
>> > > >> >> > The best practice is to define plugins versions in your  
>> pom.xml
>> >
>> > (or
>> >
>> > > >> >> > parent).
>> > > >> >> > Getting very old versions of plugins by default is the best
>> > > >>
>> > > >> additional
>> > > >>
>> > > >> >> > feature
>> > > >> >> > we have after the WARN "plugin version not defined"
>> > > >> >> >
>> > > >> >> > Then IMHO, upgrading default plugins versions is a bad  
>> idea, is
>> > > >> >> > a
>> > > >>
>> > > >> bad
>> > > >>
>> > > >> >> > message
>> > > >> >> > = "you can continue to ignore the WARN on plugins versions  
>> and
>> > > >>
>> > > >> still
>> > > >>
>> > > >> >> get
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> > newest and latest plugins"
>> > > >> >> >
>> > > >> >> > this leads IMHO to one (bad) reason for people to require  
>> Maven
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> Wrapper
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> > I know, this is counter intuitive, that's why it is  
>> required to
>> > > >>
>> > > >> really
>> > > >>
>> > > >> >> > take a
>> > > >> >> > moment to think about it
>> > > >> >> >
>> > > >> >> > Regards,
>> > > >> >> >
>> > > >> >> > Hervé
>> > > >> >> >
>> > > >> >> > Le jeudi 10 janvier 2019, 17:08:57 CET Tibor Digana a écrit  
>> :
>> > > >> >> > > Why we use old versions in default-bindings.xml?
>> > > >> >> > > Can we update all versions in 3.6.1 release?
>> > > >> >> > >
>> > > >> >> > > Here is MNG-6557 which is related to Surefire but I guess  
>> this
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Jira
>> > > >>
>> > > >> >> > > issue
>> > > >> >> > > can be freely related to all plugins.
>> > > >> >> > >
>> > > >> >> > > WDYT?
>> > > >> >> > > Any objections to update all plugins and assign this  
>> issue in
>> > > >>
>> > > >> 3.6.1?
>> > > >>
>> > > >> >> > > Cheers
>> > > >> >> > > Tibor
>> > > >>
>> > > >>  
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > >>
>> > > >> >> > 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]
>> > > >>
>> > > >>  
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > >> 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]
>> > >
>> > >  
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > 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]

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Update versions of all plugins in default-bindings.xml

Robert Scholte-8
This is my view on it in the following order:
- Improve warning regarding default lifecycle bindings
- update plugin versions
- support failOnWarning[1] . This one hasn't been mentioned yet, but it  
seems like some are still concerned about warnings not being read despite  
the colors. Now Maven is only triggered by Exceptions to fail the build.  
MNG-6065 is about a logging adapter that captures the loglevel per message.

thanks,
Robert

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-6065

On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 12:16:09 +0100, Tibor Digana <[hidden email]>  
wrote:

> Robert, your email still was not totally concrete.
> I understand it like this; the warnings proposed by Herve been introduced
> in the nearest version 3.6.x, and an update of default bindings in 3.7.0.
> Do we understand it in the same roadmap?
>
> In my experiences, developers do not read warnings because they do not  
> have
> time and they expect Maven been an executor which should "just work".  
> Even
> nobody cares in the log at all except the end, whether it is BUILD  
> SUCCESS
> or failure. And then the people track failed tests or compilations  
> errors,
> but never the log or warnings on the top, never.
>
> T
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 13, 2019 at 11:37 AM Robert Scholte <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> This is indeed a good approach.
>> The first group doesn't care about this warning, the second one should.
>>
>> Hervé, can you confirm that in case of *only* specifying the latest
>> maven-jar-plugin or maven-war-plugin or other packaging plugin, you  
>> won't
>> get these warnings.
>> It really matters where the default lifecycle bindings are comings from:
>> maven-core or packaging plugin.
>>
>> All this is an interesting feature worth for 3.7.0
>>
>> thanks,
>> Robert
>>
>> On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 04:39:15 +0100, Hervé BOUTEMY  
>> <[hidden email]>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > we have 2 opposite objectives:
>> > - make default near-empty pom work at best,
>> > - but force people to have defined plugins versions (then not really
>> > empty pom) to get stable build
>> >
>> > and I checked about the warning message: I was wrong, there is no
>> > warning message when plugins without versions are injected by default
>> > lifecycle bindings
>> >
>> > Just test for yourself following pom.xml from any beginner:
>> >   <project>
>> >     <modelVersion>4.0.0</modelVersion>
>> >     <groupId>com.mycompany.app</groupId>
>> >     <artifactId>my-app</artifactId>
>> >     <version>1.0-SNAPSHOT</version>
>> >   </project>
>> >
>> > it works = what we expect to ease newcomers experience
>> > but there is no warning...
>> >
>> > IMHO, this is where we need to improve the tool, by adding a warning:
>> > I worked on a PoC of DefaultLifecycleBindingsInjector improvement that
>> > displays:
>> > [WARNING]
>> > [WARNING] Some problems were encountered while building the effective
>> > model for com.mycompany.app:my-app:jar:1.0-SNAPSHOT
>> > [WARNING] Using default plugins versions from bindings:
>> > [org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-clean-plugin,
>> > org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-install-plugin,
>> > org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-resources-plugin,
>> > org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-surefire-plugin,
>> > org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-compiler-plugin,
>> > org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-jar-plugin,
>> > org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-deploy-plugin,
>> > org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-site-plugin]
>> > [WARNING]
>> > [WARNING] It is highly recommended to fix these problems because they
>> > threaten the stability of your build.
>> > [WARNING]
>> > [WARNING] For this reason, future Maven versions might no longer
>> support
>> > building such malformed projects.
>> > [WARNING]
>> >
>> > With this warning, and a parent pom to have an easy fix (instead of 8
>> > plugins versions definition), IMHO, we have what we strongly need.
>> >
>> > And even better, with this warning in place to avoid people to  
>> continue
>> > to rely on default plugins versions (because of the nasty warning), I
>> > could find upgrading default plugins versions not an issue any more!!!
>> >
>> > Should we try to go this route?
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> > Hervé
>> >
>> > Le dimanche 13 janvier 2019, 00:15:38 CET Stephen Connolly a écrit :
>> >> The original plan was to make plugin version mandatory. Perhaps  
>> 3.7.0 is
>> >> the time to do that, with a CLI option (to be removed after 3.7.x) to
>> >> pull
>> >> in the 3.6.x default versions if your pom is missing plugin versions.
>> >>
>> >> The warning has been there long enough. Let’s pull the trigger.
>> >>
>> >> On Sat 12 Jan 2019 at 21:34, Tibor Digana <[hidden email]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > I have a strong reason to update Surefire due to new JRE versions  
>> have
>> >> > been
>> >> > updated too many times last two years.
>> >> > They required a fix done within a few days and some of them are
>> >> shaking on
>> >> > the chair...
>> >> > Our Maven Core is stable and Java 9+ ready but the obsolete plugins
>> >> are
>> >> > not.
>> >> > I want only the same compatibility with default plugins because
>> >> people do
>> >> > not see these plugins as a distinct community. They are both Maven  
>> and
>> >> > plugins from us Apache, so they most probably would expect it
>> >> consistent
>> >> > altogether.
>> >> > Makes sense?
>> >> >
>> >> > On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 7:24 PM Bernd Eckenfels
>> >> <[hidden email]>
>> >> >
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> > > I think that’s a real bad idea if you have to do local
>> >> modifications to
>> >> > > get to a working build environment. Maven is all about not
>> >> requiring you
>> >> >
>> >> > to
>> >> >
>> >> > > do that (anymore). So even requiring a certain Maven Version does
>> >> not
>> >> > > fit
>> >> > > in that pattern (although unavoidable if you do not want to work
>> >> with
>> >> > > wrappers).
>> >> > >
>> >> > > So this means: keep old standard versions and overwrite them
>> always
>> >> in
>> >> > > poms. (And it means the amount of default versions should be
>> >> reduced or
>> >> >
>> >> > at
>> >> >
>> >> > > least not add new ones)
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Gruss
>> >> > > Bernd
>> >> > > --
>> >> > > http://bernd.eckenfels.net
>> >> > >
>> >> > > ________________________________
>> >> > > Von: Robert Scholte <[hidden email]>
>> >> > > Gesendet: Samstag, Januar 12, 2019 5:07 PM
>> >> > > An: Maven Developers List
>> >> > > Betreff: Re: Update versions of all plugins in  
>> default-bindings.xml
>> >> > >
>> >> > > I had chats with both Adam Bien and Sebastian Daschner asking  
>> for a
>> >> >
>> >> > better
>> >> >
>> >> > > way to work with a simple high-speed throw-away development pom.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > They are both working a lot with Java EE applications and want to
>> >> rely
>> >> > > on
>> >> > > defaults as much as possible.
>> >> > > So in a way they don't care about plugin versions.
>> >> > > They only case about things in poms that does matter (unique to  
>> that
>> >> > > project): dependencies
>> >> > > However, with Java 9+ stuff they are forced to specify plugins
>> with
>> >> more
>> >> > > recent versions right now.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > So here comes the idea of extensions: you can put it in your
>> >> >
>> >> > maven/lib/ext
>> >> >
>> >> > > ONCE and your pom is again as clean as possible.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > This seems to be a common way of work for some kind of developers
>> >> and it
>> >> > > would make sense if Maven could support this.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > To me default plugin versions are bound to a minor Maven release,
>> >> not a
>> >> > > major.
>> >> > > When starting with Maven and create your first hello world, it
>> >> should
>> >> >
>> >> > work
>> >> >
>> >> > > out of the box.
>> >> > > Right now if you are using Java 11, you'll probably hit issues
>> >> because
>> >> > > some defaults won't work anymore.
>> >> > > That's a bad thing to me and a valid reason to upgrade the  
>> plugins.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > I do understand Hervé concerns. We should motivate people to lock
>> >> their
>> >> > > plugins in their pom.
>> >> > > Most of all the packaging-plugin is important. AFAIK all 3.0+
>> >> versions
>> >> > > contain plugin bindings, in which case it should be good enough  
>> if
>> >> that
>> >> > > plugin is at least specified.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > thanks,
>> >> > > Robert
>> >> > >
>> >> > > On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 16:24:31 +0100, Hervé BOUTEMY
>> >> <[hidden email]
>> >> > >
>> >> > > wrote:
>> >> > > > original idea, let's try to evaluate :)
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > IMHO this could work for packaging plugins in default  
>> lifecycle,
>> >> that
>> >> >
>> >> > are
>> >> >
>> >> > > > defined in default-bindings.xml, but would not for other
>> >> lifecycles
>> >> >
>> >> > that
>> >> >
>> >> > > > are
>> >> > > > configured in components.xml (without copy/pasting content not
>> >> related
>> >> >
>> >> > to
>> >> >
>> >> > > > plugins)
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > I don't think an extension would be easier to use than a
>> pom.xml,
>> >> it's
>> >> > > > even
>> >> > > > IMHO worse since you have to create a new file in a new  
>> directory.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > one question is: is there a use case that an extension would
>> >> permit
>> >> >
>> >> > that
>> >> >
>> >> > > > a
>> >> > > > parent pom would not?
>> >> > > > the only case I see is if a user does not want to change his
>> >> parent
>> >> > > > pom
>> >> > > > (or
>> >> > > > cannot): since we don't have "pluginManagement import" (like we
>> >> have
>> >> >
>> >> > for
>> >> >
>> >> > > > dependency management).
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > I think for the moment that a parent pom would be more  
>> classical,
>> >> >
>> >> > easier
>> >> >
>> >> > > > to
>> >> > > > explain: I don't really see a clear benefit to do the job as an
>> >> >
>> >> > extension
>> >> >
>> >> > > > instead, this would IMHO make the change harder for users
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Regards,
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Hervé
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Le samedi 12 janvier 2019, 15:42:57 CET Robert Scholte a écrit  
>> :
>> >> > > >> Just wondering, can this be solved by an extension?
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> So instead of changing this in Maven Core itself, people can
>> add
>> >> an
>> >> > > >> extension to Maven with the latest+stable releases.
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> Hervé and I already discovered that current focus is mainly on
>> >> > > >> plugins
>> >> > > >> right now. We should also work on extensions.
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> Robert
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 15:37:23 +0100, Hervé BOUTEMY
>> >> > > >> <[hidden email]>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> wrote:
>> >> > > >> > Le vendredi 11 janvier 2019, 12:55:03 CET Tibor Digana a
>> écrit
>> >> :
>> >> > > >> >> ok, Herve, the fact is that these plugins have been updated
>> >> from
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> time to
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> >> time.
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > yes, we did it in the past (years ago, look at the history)  
>> and
>> >> > > >> > went
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> to
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> > the
>> >> > > >> > conclusion we should not do that to improve reproducibility,
>> >> unless
>> >> > > >> > there is a
>> >> > > >> > strong reason to do it sometimes on some specific plugins
>> >> > > >> > = what I'm trying to explain, for the moment without much
>> >> success
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > What we could do would be to create a new POM to use as
>> parent
>> >> POM,
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> that
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> > would
>> >> >
>> >> > > >> > define the versions of every plugin from the default
>> >> lifecycles:
>> >> > this
>> >> >
>> >> > > >> > would
>> >> > > >> > avoid to have everybody to write the full list of plugins
>> >> (which is
>> >> >
>> >> > a
>> >> >
>> >> > > >> > pain: I
>> >> > > >> > know because in MARCHETYPES-54 [1] I added the list in Maven
>> >> > > >> > Archetypes...)
>> >> > > >> > We could name it "maven-default-plugins", or if somebody  
>> has a
>> >> >
>> >> > better
>> >> >
>> >> > > >> > idea.
>> >> > > >> > This way, changing plugins versions would not be tied to
>> >> changing
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> Maven
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> > version
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > WDYT?
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > Regards,
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > Hervé
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MARCHETYPES-54
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> >> How can we be on safe side with these updates? What is
>> >> mandatory
>> >> > > >> >> to
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> do
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> >> for
>> >> > > >> >> such upgrade?
>> >> > > >> >>
>> >> > > >> >> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 7:41 AM Hervé BOUTEMY <
>> >> >
>> >> > [hidden email]
>> >> >
>> >> > > >> >> wrote:
>> >> > > >> >> > As I wrote in many Jira issues over years on this topic,
>> >> I'm not
>> >> >
>> >> > in
>> >> >
>> >> > > >> >> favor
>> >> > > >> >>
>> >> > > >> >> > of
>> >> > > >> >> > that
>> >> > > >> >> >
>> >> > > >> >> > To me, staying with the same default plugins versions  
>> from
>> >> Maven
>> >> > > >> >>
>> >> > > >> >> version
>> >> > > >> >>
>> >> > > >> >> > to
>> >> > > >> >> > Maven version is a feature: nobody should expect to  
>> change
>> >> his
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> Maven
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> >> > version
>> >> > > >> >> > to change the plugins versions
>> >> > > >> >> > The best practice is to define plugins versions in your
>> >> pom.xml
>> >> >
>> >> > (or
>> >> >
>> >> > > >> >> > parent).
>> >> > > >> >> > Getting very old versions of plugins by default is the  
>> best
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> additional
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> >> > feature
>> >> > > >> >> > we have after the WARN "plugin version not defined"
>> >> > > >> >> >
>> >> > > >> >> > Then IMHO, upgrading default plugins versions is a bad
>> >> idea, is
>> >> > > >> >> > a
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> bad
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> >> > message
>> >> > > >> >> > = "you can continue to ignore the WARN on plugins  
>> versions
>> >> and
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> still
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> >> get
>> >> > > >> >>
>> >> > > >> >> > newest and latest plugins"
>> >> > > >> >> >
>> >> > > >> >> > this leads IMHO to one (bad) reason for people to require
>> >> Maven
>> >> > > >> >>
>> >> > > >> >> Wrapper
>> >> > > >> >>
>> >> > > >> >> > I know, this is counter intuitive, that's why it is
>> >> required to
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> really
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> >> > take a
>> >> > > >> >> > moment to think about it
>> >> > > >> >> >
>> >> > > >> >> > Regards,
>> >> > > >> >> >
>> >> > > >> >> > Hervé
>> >> > > >> >> >
>> >> > > >> >> > Le jeudi 10 janvier 2019, 17:08:57 CET Tibor Digana a
>> écrit
>> >> :
>> >> > > >> >> > > Why we use old versions in default-bindings.xml?
>> >> > > >> >> > > Can we update all versions in 3.6.1 release?
>> >> > > >> >> > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > Here is MNG-6557 which is related to Surefire but I
>> guess
>> >> this
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> Jira
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> >> > > issue
>> >> > > >> >> > > can be freely related to all plugins.
>> >> > > >> >> > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > WDYT?
>> >> > > >> >> > > Any objections to update all plugins and assign this
>> >> issue in
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> 3.6.1?
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> >> > > Cheers
>> >> > > >> >> > > Tibor
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> >> > 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]
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> > > >> 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]
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> > > 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]
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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: Update versions of all plugins in default-bindings.xml

Hervé BOUTEMY
In reply to this post by Robert Scholte-8
MNG-6562 Jira issue [1] and Git branch [2] created: please review and comment

I'll start to work on the new parent POM that locks down versions of plugins from default lifecycle bindings: see MPOM-215 [3]
I'll do it in a personal GitHub git repo first while we choose the final name: maven-default-plugins?

Regards,

Hervé

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-6562

[2] https://github.com/apache/maven/commit/05bc5c15dd37290e51190c6aa3fe4eb4a5bce62c

[3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MPOM-215

Le dimanche 13 janvier 2019, 11:37:43 CET Robert Scholte a écrit :

> This is indeed a good approach.
> The first group doesn't care about this warning, the second one should.
>
> Hervé, can you confirm that in case of *only* specifying the latest
> maven-jar-plugin or maven-war-plugin or other packaging plugin, you won't
> get these warnings.
> It really matters where the default lifecycle bindings are comings from:
> maven-core or packaging plugin.
>
> All this is an interesting feature worth for 3.7.0
>
> thanks,
> Robert
>
> On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 04:39:15 +0100, Hervé BOUTEMY <[hidden email]>
>
> wrote:
> > we have 2 opposite objectives:
> > - make default near-empty pom work at best,
> > - but force people to have defined plugins versions (then not really
> > empty pom) to get stable build
> >
> > and I checked about the warning message: I was wrong, there is no
> > warning message when plugins without versions are injected by default
> > lifecycle bindings
> >
> > Just test for yourself following pom.xml from any beginner:
> >   <project>
> >  
> >     <modelVersion>4.0.0</modelVersion>
> >     <groupId>com.mycompany.app</groupId>
> >     <artifactId>my-app</artifactId>
> >     <version>1.0-SNAPSHOT</version>
> >  
> >   </project>
> >
> > it works = what we expect to ease newcomers experience
> > but there is no warning...
> >
> > IMHO, this is where we need to improve the tool, by adding a warning:
> > I worked on a PoC of DefaultLifecycleBindingsInjector improvement that
> > displays:
> > [WARNING]
> > [WARNING] Some problems were encountered while building the effective
> > model for com.mycompany.app:my-app:jar:1.0-SNAPSHOT
> > [WARNING] Using default plugins versions from bindings:
> > [org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-clean-plugin,
> > org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-install-plugin,
> > org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-resources-plugin,
> > org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-surefire-plugin,
> > org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-compiler-plugin,
> > org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-jar-plugin,
> > org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-deploy-plugin,
> > org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-site-plugin]
> > [WARNING]
> > [WARNING] It is highly recommended to fix these problems because they
> > threaten the stability of your build.
> > [WARNING]
> > [WARNING] For this reason, future Maven versions might no longer support
> > building such malformed projects.
> > [WARNING]
> >
> > With this warning, and a parent pom to have an easy fix (instead of 8
> > plugins versions definition), IMHO, we have what we strongly need.
> >
> > And even better, with this warning in place to avoid people to continue
> > to rely on default plugins versions (because of the nasty warning), I
> > could find upgrading default plugins versions not an issue any more!!!
> >
> > Should we try to go this route?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Hervé
> >
> > Le dimanche 13 janvier 2019, 00:15:38 CET Stephen Connolly a écrit :
> >> The original plan was to make plugin version mandatory. Perhaps 3.7.0 is
> >> the time to do that, with a CLI option (to be removed after 3.7.x) to
> >> pull
> >> in the 3.6.x default versions if your pom is missing plugin versions.
> >>
> >> The warning has been there long enough. Let’s pull the trigger.
> >>
> >> On Sat 12 Jan 2019 at 21:34, Tibor Digana <[hidden email]>
> >>
> >> wrote:
> >> > I have a strong reason to update Surefire due to new JRE versions have
> >> > been
> >> > updated too many times last two years.
> >> > They required a fix done within a few days and some of them are
> >>
> >> shaking on
> >>
> >> > the chair...
> >> > Our Maven Core is stable and Java 9+ ready but the obsolete plugins
> >>
> >> are
> >>
> >> > not.
> >> > I want only the same compatibility with default plugins because
> >>
> >> people do
> >>
> >> > not see these plugins as a distinct community. They are both Maven and
> >> > plugins from us Apache, so they most probably would expect it
> >>
> >> consistent
> >>
> >> > altogether.
> >> > Makes sense?
> >> >
> >> > On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 7:24 PM Bernd Eckenfels
> >>
> >> <[hidden email]>
> >>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > > I think that’s a real bad idea if you have to do local
> >>
> >> modifications to
> >>
> >> > > get to a working build environment. Maven is all about not
> >>
> >> requiring you
> >>
> >> > to
> >> >
> >> > > do that (anymore). So even requiring a certain Maven Version does
> >>
> >> not
> >>
> >> > > fit
> >> > > in that pattern (although unavoidable if you do not want to work
> >>
> >> with
> >>
> >> > > wrappers).
> >> > >
> >> > > So this means: keep old standard versions and overwrite them always
> >>
> >> in
> >>
> >> > > poms. (And it means the amount of default versions should be
> >>
> >> reduced or
> >>
> >> > at
> >> >
> >> > > least not add new ones)
> >> > >
> >> > > Gruss
> >> > > Bernd
> >> > > --
> >> > > http://bernd.eckenfels.net
> >> > >
> >> > > ________________________________
> >> > > Von: Robert Scholte <[hidden email]>
> >> > > Gesendet: Samstag, Januar 12, 2019 5:07 PM
> >> > > An: Maven Developers List
> >> > > Betreff: Re: Update versions of all plugins in default-bindings.xml
> >> > >
> >> > > I had chats with both Adam Bien and Sebastian Daschner asking for a
> >> >
> >> > better
> >> >
> >> > > way to work with a simple high-speed throw-away development pom.
> >> > >
> >> > > They are both working a lot with Java EE applications and want to
> >>
> >> rely
> >>
> >> > > on
> >> > > defaults as much as possible.
> >> > > So in a way they don't care about plugin versions.
> >> > > They only case about things in poms that does matter (unique to that
> >> > > project): dependencies
> >> > > However, with Java 9+ stuff they are forced to specify plugins with
> >>
> >> more
> >>
> >> > > recent versions right now.
> >> > >
> >> > > So here comes the idea of extensions: you can put it in your
> >> >
> >> > maven/lib/ext
> >> >
> >> > > ONCE and your pom is again as clean as possible.
> >> > >
> >> > > This seems to be a common way of work for some kind of developers
> >>
> >> and it
> >>
> >> > > would make sense if Maven could support this.
> >> > >
> >> > > To me default plugin versions are bound to a minor Maven release,
> >>
> >> not a
> >>
> >> > > major.
> >> > > When starting with Maven and create your first hello world, it
> >>
> >> should
> >>
> >> > work
> >> >
> >> > > out of the box.
> >> > > Right now if you are using Java 11, you'll probably hit issues
> >>
> >> because
> >>
> >> > > some defaults won't work anymore.
> >> > > That's a bad thing to me and a valid reason to upgrade the plugins.
> >> > >
> >> > > I do understand Hervé concerns. We should motivate people to lock
> >>
> >> their
> >>
> >> > > plugins in their pom.
> >> > > Most of all the packaging-plugin is important. AFAIK all 3.0+
> >>
> >> versions
> >>
> >> > > contain plugin bindings, in which case it should be good enough if
> >>
> >> that
> >>
> >> > > plugin is at least specified.
> >> > >
> >> > > thanks,
> >> > > Robert
> >> > >
> >> > > On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 16:24:31 +0100, Hervé BOUTEMY
> >>
> >> <[hidden email]
> >>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > > original idea, let's try to evaluate :)
> >> > > >
> >> > > > IMHO this could work for packaging plugins in default lifecycle,
> >>
> >> that
> >>
> >> > are
> >> >
> >> > > > defined in default-bindings.xml, but would not for other
> >>
> >> lifecycles
> >>
> >> > that
> >> >
> >> > > > are
> >> > > > configured in components.xml (without copy/pasting content not
> >>
> >> related
> >>
> >> > to
> >> >
> >> > > > plugins)
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I don't think an extension would be easier to use than a pom.xml,
> >>
> >> it's
> >>
> >> > > > even
> >> > > > IMHO worse since you have to create a new file in a new directory.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > one question is: is there a use case that an extension would
> >>
> >> permit
> >>
> >> > that
> >> >
> >> > > > a
> >> > > > parent pom would not?
> >> > > > the only case I see is if a user does not want to change his
> >>
> >> parent
> >>
> >> > > > pom
> >> > > > (or
> >> > > > cannot): since we don't have "pluginManagement import" (like we
> >>
> >> have
> >>
> >> > for
> >> >
> >> > > > dependency management).
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I think for the moment that a parent pom would be more classical,
> >> >
> >> > easier
> >> >
> >> > > > to
> >> > > > explain: I don't really see a clear benefit to do the job as an
> >> >
> >> > extension
> >> >
> >> > > > instead, this would IMHO make the change harder for users
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Regards,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Hervé
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Le samedi 12 janvier 2019, 15:42:57 CET Robert Scholte a écrit :
> >> > > >> Just wondering, can this be solved by an extension?
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> So instead of changing this in Maven Core itself, people can add
> >>
> >> an
> >>
> >> > > >> extension to Maven with the latest+stable releases.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Hervé and I already discovered that current focus is mainly on
> >> > > >> plugins
> >> > > >> right now. We should also work on extensions.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Robert
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 15:37:23 +0100, Hervé BOUTEMY
> >> > > >> <[hidden email]>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> wrote:
> >> > > >> > Le vendredi 11 janvier 2019, 12:55:03 CET Tibor Digana a écrit
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> >> ok, Herve, the fact is that these plugins have been updated
> >>
> >> from
> >>
> >> > > >> time to
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> >> time.
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > yes, we did it in the past (years ago, look at the history) and
> >> > > >> > went
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> to
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> > the
> >> > > >> > conclusion we should not do that to improve reproducibility,
> >>
> >> unless
> >>
> >> > > >> > there is a
> >> > > >> > strong reason to do it sometimes on some specific plugins
> >> > > >> > = what I'm trying to explain, for the moment without much
> >>
> >> success
> >>
> >> > > >> > What we could do would be to create a new POM to use as parent
> >>
> >> POM,
> >>
> >> > > >> that
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> > would
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > define the versions of every plugin from the default
> >>
> >> lifecycles:
> >> > this
> >> >
> >> > > >> > would
> >> > > >> > avoid to have everybody to write the full list of plugins
> >>
> >> (which is
> >>
> >> > a
> >> >
> >> > > >> > pain: I
> >> > > >> > know because in MARCHETYPES-54 [1] I added the list in Maven
> >> > > >> > Archetypes...)
> >> > > >> > We could name it "maven-default-plugins", or if somebody has a
> >> >
> >> > better
> >> >
> >> > > >> > idea.
> >> > > >> > This way, changing plugins versions would not be tied to
> >>
> >> changing
> >>
> >> > > >> Maven
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> > version
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > WDYT?
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > Regards,
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > Hervé
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MARCHETYPES-54
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> >> How can we be on safe side with these updates? What is
> >>
> >> mandatory
> >>
> >> > > >> >> to
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> do
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> >> for
> >> > > >> >> such upgrade?
> >> > > >> >>
> >> > > >> >> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 7:41 AM Hervé BOUTEMY <
> >> >
> >> > [hidden email]
> >> >
> >> > > >> >> wrote:
> >> > > >> >> > As I wrote in many Jira issues over years on this topic,
> >>
> >> I'm not
> >>
> >> > in
> >> >
> >> > > >> >> favor
> >> > > >> >>
> >> > > >> >> > of
> >> > > >> >> > that
> >> > > >> >> >
> >> > > >> >> > To me, staying with the same default plugins versions from
> >>
> >> Maven
> >>
> >> > > >> >> version
> >> > > >> >>
> >> > > >> >> > to
> >> > > >> >> > Maven version is a feature: nobody should expect to change
> >>
> >> his
> >>
> >> > > >> Maven
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> >> > version
> >> > > >> >> > to change the plugins versions
> >> > > >> >> > The best practice is to define plugins versions in your
> >>
> >> pom.xml
> >>
> >> > (or
> >> >
> >> > > >> >> > parent).
> >> > > >> >> > Getting very old versions of plugins by default is the best
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> additional
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> >> > feature
> >> > > >> >> > we have after the WARN "plugin version not defined"
> >> > > >> >> >
> >> > > >> >> > Then IMHO, upgrading default plugins versions is a bad
> >>
> >> idea, is
> >>
> >> > > >> >> > a
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> bad
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> >> > message
> >> > > >> >> > = "you can continue to ignore the WARN on plugins versions
> >>
> >> and
> >>
> >> > > >> still
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> >> get
> >> > > >> >>
> >> > > >> >> > newest and latest plugins"
> >> > > >> >> >
> >> > > >> >> > this leads IMHO to one (bad) reason for people to require
> >>
> >> Maven
> >>
> >> > > >> >> Wrapper
> >> > > >> >>
> >> > > >> >> > I know, this is counter intuitive, that's why it is
> >>
> >> required to
> >>
> >> > > >> really
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> >> > take a
> >> > > >> >> > moment to think about it
> >> > > >> >> >
> >> > > >> >> > Regards,
> >> > > >> >> >
> >> > > >> >> > Hervé
> >> > > >> >> >
> >> > > >> >> > Le jeudi 10 janvier 2019, 17:08:57 CET Tibor Digana a écrit
> >> > > >> >> >
> >> > > >> >> > > Why we use old versions in default-bindings.xml?
> >> > > >> >> > > Can we update all versions in 3.6.1 release?
> >> > > >> >> > >
> >> > > >> >> > > Here is MNG-6557 which is related to Surefire but I guess
> >>
> >> this
> >>
> >> > > >> Jira
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> >> > > issue
> >> > > >> >> > > can be freely related to all plugins.
> >> > > >> >> > >
> >> > > >> >> > > WDYT?
> >> > > >> >> > > Any objections to update all plugins and assign this
> >>
> >> issue in
> >>
> >> > > >> 3.6.1?
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> >> > > Cheers
> >> > > >> >> > > Tibor
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> > > >> >> > 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]
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> > > >> 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]
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> > > 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]
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Update versions of all plugins in default-bindings.xml

Tibor Digana
>> However, it seems that the only use case for upgrading the default
plugin versions is compatibility with some specific Java version?

Gabriel, Java version is not the only one reason.
There is API version as well and bug fixing.
These plugins are especially important because they are bound to the build
life cycle.
Scaring with making new plugin updates in Maven Core by the same
development group would mean almost the same that we did not trust the
plugin releases we have made.

>> added value by updating this service from outside of either a maven core
I agree with Robert. The XML should be externalized.
I understand it the way that this XML would be in the Maven distribution
and not in JAR file.
There is a similarity with JavaEE idea where configuration is not embedded
in the software - apart, but that's a different story.





On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 11:59 PM Gabriel Belingueres <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> I think I'm joining late to this thread. +1 to showing a warning message.
>
> However, it seems that the only use case for upgrading the default plugin
> versions is compatibility with some specific Java version?
>
> How about developing a plugin that "recommends" specific plugin versions
> based on the source/target java version? recommendation can be based on a
> downloaded file/database/artifact/web service that the plugin parses? This
> way you can add some added value by updating this service from outside of
> either a maven core or specific plugin's release cycle.
>
> El lun., 14 de ene. de 2019 a la(s) 10:34, Hervé BOUTEMY (
> [hidden email]) escribió:
>
> > PR also created :)
> > https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/233
> >
> > Le lundi 14 janvier 2019, 12:06:40 CET Hervé BOUTEMY a écrit :
> > > MNG-6562 Jira issue [1] and Git branch [2] created: please review and
> > > comment
> > >
> > > I'll start to work on the new parent POM that locks down versions of
> > plugins
> > > from default lifecycle bindings: see MPOM-215 [3] I'll do it in a
> > personal
> > > GitHub git repo first while we choose the final name:
> > > maven-default-plugins?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Hervé
> > >
> > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-6562
> > >
> > > [2]
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/maven/commit/05bc5c15dd37290e51190c6aa3fe4eb4a5bc
> > > e62c
> > >
> > > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MPOM-215
> > >
> > > Le dimanche 13 janvier 2019, 11:37:43 CET Robert Scholte a écrit :
> > > > This is indeed a good approach.
> > > > The first group doesn't care about this warning, the second one
> should.
> > > >
> > > > Hervé, can you confirm that in case of *only* specifying the latest
> > > > maven-jar-plugin or maven-war-plugin or other packaging plugin, you
> > won't
> > > > get these warnings.
> > > > It really matters where the default lifecycle bindings are comings
> > from:
> > > > maven-core or packaging plugin.
> > > >
> > > > All this is an interesting feature worth for 3.7.0
> > > >
> > > > thanks,
> > > > Robert
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 04:39:15 +0100, Hervé BOUTEMY <
> > [hidden email]>
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > we have 2 opposite objectives:
> > > > > - make default near-empty pom work at best,
> > > > > - but force people to have defined plugins versions (then not
> really
> > > > > empty pom) to get stable build
> > > > >
> > > > > and I checked about the warning message: I was wrong, there is no
> > > > > warning message when plugins without versions are injected by
> default
> > > > > lifecycle bindings
> > > > >
> > > > > Just test for yourself following pom.xml from any beginner:
> > > > >   <project>
> > > > >
> > > > >     <modelVersion>4.0.0</modelVersion>
> > > > >     <groupId>com.mycompany.app</groupId>
> > > > >     <artifactId>my-app</artifactId>
> > > > >     <version>1.0-SNAPSHOT</version>
> > > > >
> > > > >   </project>
> > > > >
> > > > > it works = what we expect to ease newcomers experience
> > > > > but there is no warning...
> > > > >
> > > > > IMHO, this is where we need to improve the tool, by adding a
> warning:
> > > > > I worked on a PoC of DefaultLifecycleBindingsInjector improvement
> > that
> > > > > displays:
> > > > > [WARNING]
> > > > > [WARNING] Some problems were encountered while building the
> effective
> > > > > model for com.mycompany.app:my-app:jar:1.0-SNAPSHOT
> > > > > [WARNING] Using default plugins versions from bindings:
> > > > > [org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-clean-plugin,
> > > > > org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-install-plugin,
> > > > > org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-resources-plugin,
> > > > > org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-surefire-plugin,
> > > > > org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-compiler-plugin,
> > > > > org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-jar-plugin,
> > > > > org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-deploy-plugin,
> > > > > org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-site-plugin]
> > > > > [WARNING]
> > > > > [WARNING] It is highly recommended to fix these problems because
> they
> > > > > threaten the stability of your build.
> > > > > [WARNING]
> > > > > [WARNING] For this reason, future Maven versions might no longer
> > support
> > > > > building such malformed projects.
> > > > > [WARNING]
> > > > >
> > > > > With this warning, and a parent pom to have an easy fix (instead
> of 8
> > > > > plugins versions definition), IMHO, we have what we strongly need.
> > > > >
> > > > > And even better, with this warning in place to avoid people to
> > continue
> > > > > to rely on default plugins versions (because of the nasty
> warning), I
> > > > > could find upgrading default plugins versions not an issue any
> > more!!!
> > > > >
> > > > > Should we try to go this route?
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Hervé
> > > > >
> > > > > Le dimanche 13 janvier 2019, 00:15:38 CET Stephen Connolly a écrit
> :
> > > > >> The original plan was to make plugin version mandatory. Perhaps
> > 3.7.0
> > > > >> is
> > > > >> the time to do that, with a CLI option (to be removed after 3.7.x)
> > to
> > > > >> pull
> > > > >> in the 3.6.x default versions if your pom is missing plugin
> > versions.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The warning has been there long enough. Let’s pull the trigger.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Sat 12 Jan 2019 at 21:34, Tibor Digana <[hidden email]
> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >> > I have a strong reason to update Surefire due to new JRE
> versions
> > > > >> > have
> > > > >> > been
> > > > >> > updated too many times last two years.
> > > > >> > They required a fix done within a few days and some of them are
> > > > >>
> > > > >> shaking on
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > the chair...
> > > > >> > Our Maven Core is stable and Java 9+ ready but the obsolete
> > plugins
> > > > >>
> > > > >> are
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > not.
> > > > >> > I want only the same compatibility with default plugins because
> > > > >>
> > > > >> people do
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > not see these plugins as a distinct community. They are both
> Maven
> > > > >> > and
> > > > >> > plugins from us Apache, so they most probably would expect it
> > > > >>
> > > > >> consistent
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > altogether.
> > > > >> > Makes sense?
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 7:24 PM Bernd Eckenfels
> > > > >>
> > > > >> <[hidden email]>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > >> > > I think that’s a real bad idea if you have to do local
> > > > >>
> > > > >> modifications to
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > > get to a working build environment. Maven is all about not
> > > > >>
> > > > >> requiring you
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > to
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > do that (anymore). So even requiring a certain Maven Version
> > does
> > > > >>
> > > > >> not
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > > fit
> > > > >> > > in that pattern (although unavoidable if you do not want to
> work
> > > > >>
> > > > >> with
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > > wrappers).
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > So this means: keep old standard versions and overwrite them
> > always
> > > > >>
> > > > >> in
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > > poms. (And it means the amount of default versions should be
> > > > >>
> > > > >> reduced or
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > at
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > least not add new ones)
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Gruss
> > > > >> > > Bernd
> > > > >> > > --
> > > > >> > > http://bernd.eckenfels.net
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > ________________________________
> > > > >> > > Von: Robert Scholte <[hidden email]>
> > > > >> > > Gesendet: Samstag, Januar 12, 2019 5:07 PM
> > > > >> > > An: Maven Developers List
> > > > >> > > Betreff: Re: Update versions of all plugins in
> > default-bindings.xml
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > I had chats with both Adam Bien and Sebastian Daschner asking
> > for a
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > better
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > way to work with a simple high-speed throw-away development
> pom.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > They are both working a lot with Java EE applications and want
> > to
> > > > >>
> > > > >> rely
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > > on
> > > > >> > > defaults as much as possible.
> > > > >> > > So in a way they don't care about plugin versions.
> > > > >> > > They only case about things in poms that does matter (unique
> to
> > > > >> > > that
> > > > >> > > project): dependencies
> > > > >> > > However, with Java 9+ stuff they are forced to specify plugins
> > with
> > > > >>
> > > > >> more
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > > recent versions right now.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > So here comes the idea of extensions: you can put it in your
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > maven/lib/ext
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > ONCE and your pom is again as clean as possible.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > This seems to be a common way of work for some kind of
> > developers
> > > > >>
> > > > >> and it
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > > would make sense if Maven could support this.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > To me default plugin versions are bound to a minor Maven
> > release,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> not a
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > > major.
> > > > >> > > When starting with Maven and create your first hello world, it
> > > > >>
> > > > >> should
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > work
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > out of the box.
> > > > >> > > Right now if you are using Java 11, you'll probably hit issues
> > > > >>
> > > > >> because
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > > some defaults won't work anymore.
> > > > >> > > That's a bad thing to me and a valid reason to upgrade the
> > plugins.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > I do understand Hervé concerns. We should motivate people to
> > lock
> > > > >>
> > > > >> their
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > > plugins in their pom.
> > > > >> > > Most of all the packaging-plugin is important. AFAIK all 3.0+
> > > > >>
> > > > >> versions
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > > contain plugin bindings, in which case it should be good
> enough
> > if
> > > > >>
> > > > >> that
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > > plugin is at least specified.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > thanks,
> > > > >> > > Robert
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 16:24:31 +0100, Hervé BOUTEMY
> > > > >>
> > > > >> <[hidden email]
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > original idea, let's try to evaluate :)
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > IMHO this could work for packaging plugins in default
> > lifecycle,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> that
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > are
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > defined in default-bindings.xml, but would not for other
> > > > >>
> > > > >> lifecycles
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > that
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > are
> > > > >> > > > configured in components.xml (without copy/pasting content
> not
> > > > >>
> > > > >> related
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > to
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > plugins)
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > I don't think an extension would be easier to use than a
> > pom.xml,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> it's
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > even
> > > > >> > > > IMHO worse since you have to create a new file in a new
> > > > >> > > > directory.
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > one question is: is there a use case that an extension would
> > > > >>
> > > > >> permit
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > that
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > a
> > > > >> > > > parent pom would not?
> > > > >> > > > the only case I see is if a user does not want to change his
> > > > >>
> > > > >> parent
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > pom
> > > > >> > > > (or
> > > > >> > > > cannot): since we don't have "pluginManagement import" (like
> > we
> > > > >>
> > > > >> have
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > for
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > dependency management).
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > I think for the moment that a parent pom would be more
> > classical,
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > easier
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > to
> > > > >> > > > explain: I don't really see a clear benefit to do the job as
> > an
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > extension
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > instead, this would IMHO make the change harder for users
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > Regards,
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > Hervé
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > Le samedi 12 janvier 2019, 15:42:57 CET Robert Scholte a
> > écrit :
> > > > >> > > >> Just wondering, can this be solved by an extension?
> > > > >> > > >>
> > > > >> > > >> So instead of changing this in Maven Core itself, people
> can
> > add
> > > > >>
> > > > >> an
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > > >> extension to Maven with the latest+stable releases.
> > > > >> > > >>
> > > > >> > > >> Hervé and I already discovered that current focus is mainly
> > on
> > > > >> > > >> plugins
> > > > >> > > >> right now. We should also work on extensions.
> > > > >> > > >>
> > > > >> > > >> Robert
> > > > >> > > >>
> > > > >> > > >> On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 15:37:23 +0100, Hervé BOUTEMY
> > > > >> > > >> <[hidden email]>
> > > > >> > > >>
> > > > >> > > >> wrote:
> > > > >> > > >> > Le vendredi 11 janvier 2019, 12:55:03 CET Tibor Digana a
> > écrit
> > > > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> > > >> >> ok, Herve, the fact is that these plugins have been
> > updated
> > > > >>
> > > > >> from
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > > >> time to
> > > > >> > > >>
> > > > >> > > >> >> time.
> > > > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> > > >> > yes, we did it in the past (years ago, look at the
> history)
> > > > >> > > >> > and
> > > > >> > > >> > went
> > > > >> > > >>
> > > > >> > > >> to
> > > > >> > > >>
> > > > >> > > >> > the
> > > > >> > > >> > conclusion we should not do that to improve
> > reproducibility,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> unless
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > > >> > there is a
> > > > >> > > >> > strong reason to do it sometimes on some specific plugins
> > > > >> > > >> > = what I'm trying to explain, for the moment without much
> > > > >>
> > > > >> success
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > > >> > What we could do would be to create a new POM to use as
> > parent
> > > > >>
> > > > >> POM,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > > >> that
> > > > >> > > >>
> > > > >> > > >> > would
> > > > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> > > >> > define the versions of every plugin from the default
> > > > >>
> > > > >> lifecycles:
> > > > >> > this
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > >> > would
> > > > >> > > >> > avoid to have everybody to write the full list of plugins
> > > > >>
> > > > >> (which is
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > a
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > >> > pain: I
> > > > >> > > >> > know because in MARCHETYPES-54 [1] I added the list in
> > Maven
> > > > >> > > >> > Archetypes...)
> > > > >> > > >> > We could name it "maven-default-plugins", or if somebody
> > has a
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > better
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > >> > idea.
> > > > >> > > >> > This way, changing plugins versions would not be tied to
> > > > >>
> > > > >> changing
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > > >> Maven
> > > > >> > > >>
> > > > >> > > >> > version
> > > > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> > > >> > WDYT?
> > > > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> > > >> > Regards,
> > > > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> > > >> > Hervé
> > > > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> > > >> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MARCHETYPES-54
> > > > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> > > >> >> How can we be on safe side with these updates? What is
> > > > >>
> > > > >> mandatory
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > > >> >> to
> > > > >> > > >>
> > > > >> > > >> do
> > > > >> > > >>
> > > > >> > > >> >> for
> > > > >> > > >> >> such upgrade?
> > > > >> > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > >> >> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 7:41 AM Hervé BOUTEMY <
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > [hidden email]
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > >> >> wrote:
> > > > >> > > >> >> > As I wrote in many Jira issues over years on this
> topic,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I'm not
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > in
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > >> >> favor
> > > > >> > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > >> >> > of
> > > > >> > > >> >> > that
> > > > >> > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > >> >> > To me, staying with the same default plugins versions
> > from
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Maven
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > > >> >> version
> > > > >> > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > >> >> > to
> > > > >> > > >> >> > Maven version is a feature: nobody should expect to
> > change
> > > > >>
> > > > >> his
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > > >> Maven
> > > > >> > > >>
> > > > >> > > >> >> > version
> > > > >> > > >> >> > to change the plugins versions
> > > > >> > > >> >> > The best practice is to define plugins versions in
> your
> > > > >>
> > > > >> pom.xml
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > (or
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > >> >> > parent).
> > > > >> > > >> >> > Getting very old versions of plugins by default is the
> > best
> > > > >> > > >>
> > > > >> > > >> additional
> > > > >> > > >>
> > > > >> > > >> >> > feature
> > > > >> > > >> >> > we have after the WARN "plugin version not defined"
> > > > >> > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > >> >> > Then IMHO, upgrading default plugins versions is a bad
> > > > >>
> > > > >> idea, is
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > > >> >> > a
> > > > >> > > >>
> > > > >> > > >> bad
> > > > >> > > >>
> > > > >> > > >> >> > message
> > > > >> > > >> >> > = "you can continue to ignore the WARN on plugins
> > versions
> > > > >>
> > > > >> and
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > > >> still
> > > > >> > > >>
> > > > >> > > >> >> get
> > > > >> > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > >> >> > newest and latest plugins"
> > > > >> > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > >> >> > this leads IMHO to one (bad) reason for people to
> > require
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Maven
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > > >> >> Wrapper
> > > > >> > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > >> >> > I know, this is counter intuitive, that's why it is
> > > > >>
> > > > >> required to
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > > >> really
> > > > >> > > >>
> > > > >> > > >> >> > take a
> > > > >> > > >> >> > moment to think about it
> > > > >> > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > >> >> > Regards,
> > > > >> > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > >> >> > Hervé
> > > > >> > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > >> >> > Le jeudi 10 janvier 2019, 17:08:57 CET Tibor Digana a
> > écrit
> > > > >> > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > >> >> > > Why we use old versions in default-bindings.xml?
> > > > >> > > >> >> > > Can we update all versions in 3.6.1 release?
> > > > >> > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> > > >> >> > > Here is MNG-6557 which is related to Surefire but I
> > guess
> > > > >>
> > > > >> this
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > > >> Jira
> > > > >> > > >>
> > > > >> > > >> >> > > issue
> > > > >> > > >> >> > > can be freely related to all plugins.
> > > > >> > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> > > >> >> > > WDYT?
> > > > >> > > >> >> > > Any objections to update all plugins and assign this
> > > > >>
> > > > >> issue in
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > > >> 3.6.1?
> > > > >> > > >>
> > > > >> > > >> >> > > Cheers
> > > > >> > > >> >> > > Tibor
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > > >> >> > 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]
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > > >> 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]
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > > 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]
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > 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]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Update versions of all plugins in default-bindings.xml

Gabriel Belingueres-2
Hi Tibor:
So Java version is a concern.
By API version do you mean Maven API version? I believe this is controlled
with the <prerequisites> tag inside the plugin's pom file?

An even simpler solution is to publish a "plugin compatibility matrix" page
in the web site as some companies do. Check for example Sonarqube [1]. It
should be easy to create a Java version (columns) vs Plugin version (rows)
matrix. Same for API version. So to guide the user to pinpoint an specific
version is to present that URL as part of the warning message.

[1] https://docs.sonarqube.org/display/PLUG/Plugin+Version+Matrix

El lun., 14 de ene. de 2019 a la(s) 23:30, Tibor Digana (
[hidden email]) escribió:

> >> However, it seems that the only use case for upgrading the default
> plugin versions is compatibility with some specific Java version?
>
> Gabriel, Java version is not the only one reason.
> There is API version as well and bug fixing.
> These plugins are especially important because they are bound to the build
> life cycle.
> Scaring with making new plugin updates in Maven Core by the same
> development group would mean almost the same that we did not trust the
> plugin releases we have made.
>
> >> added value by updating this service from outside of either a maven core
> I agree with Robert. The XML should be externalized.
> I understand it the way that this XML would be in the Maven distribution
> and not in JAR file.
> There is a similarity with JavaEE idea where configuration is not embedded
> in the software - apart, but that's a different story.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 11:59 PM Gabriel Belingueres <
> [hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > I think I'm joining late to this thread. +1 to showing a warning message.
> >
> > However, it seems that the only use case for upgrading the default plugin
> > versions is compatibility with some specific Java version?
> >
> > How about developing a plugin that "recommends" specific plugin versions
> > based on the source/target java version? recommendation can be based on a
> > downloaded file/database/artifact/web service that the plugin parses?
> This
> > way you can add some added value by updating this service from outside of
> > either a maven core or specific plugin's release cycle.
> >
> > El lun., 14 de ene. de 2019 a la(s) 10:34, Hervé BOUTEMY (
> > [hidden email]) escribió:
> >
> > > PR also created :)
> > > https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/233
> > >
> > > Le lundi 14 janvier 2019, 12:06:40 CET Hervé BOUTEMY a écrit :
> > > > MNG-6562 Jira issue [1] and Git branch [2] created: please review and
> > > > comment
> > > >
> > > > I'll start to work on the new parent POM that locks down versions of
> > > plugins
> > > > from default lifecycle bindings: see MPOM-215 [3] I'll do it in a
> > > personal
> > > > GitHub git repo first while we choose the final name:
> > > > maven-default-plugins?
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Hervé
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-6562
> > > >
> > > > [2]
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/maven/commit/05bc5c15dd37290e51190c6aa3fe4eb4a5bc
> > > > e62c
> > > >
> > > > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MPOM-215
> > > >
> > > > Le dimanche 13 janvier 2019, 11:37:43 CET Robert Scholte a écrit :
> > > > > This is indeed a good approach.
> > > > > The first group doesn't care about this warning, the second one
> > should.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hervé, can you confirm that in case of *only* specifying the latest
> > > > > maven-jar-plugin or maven-war-plugin or other packaging plugin, you
> > > won't
> > > > > get these warnings.
> > > > > It really matters where the default lifecycle bindings are comings
> > > from:
> > > > > maven-core or packaging plugin.
> > > > >
> > > > > All this is an interesting feature worth for 3.7.0
> > > > >
> > > > > thanks,
> > > > > Robert
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 04:39:15 +0100, Hervé BOUTEMY <
> > > [hidden email]>
> > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > we have 2 opposite objectives:
> > > > > > - make default near-empty pom work at best,
> > > > > > - but force people to have defined plugins versions (then not
> > really
> > > > > > empty pom) to get stable build
> > > > > >
> > > > > > and I checked about the warning message: I was wrong, there is no
> > > > > > warning message when plugins without versions are injected by
> > default
> > > > > > lifecycle bindings
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Just test for yourself following pom.xml from any beginner:
> > > > > >   <project>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >     <modelVersion>4.0.0</modelVersion>
> > > > > >     <groupId>com.mycompany.app</groupId>
> > > > > >     <artifactId>my-app</artifactId>
> > > > > >     <version>1.0-SNAPSHOT</version>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   </project>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > it works = what we expect to ease newcomers experience
> > > > > > but there is no warning...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > IMHO, this is where we need to improve the tool, by adding a
> > warning:
> > > > > > I worked on a PoC of DefaultLifecycleBindingsInjector improvement
> > > that
> > > > > > displays:
> > > > > > [WARNING]
> > > > > > [WARNING] Some problems were encountered while building the
> > effective
> > > > > > model for com.mycompany.app:my-app:jar:1.0-SNAPSHOT
> > > > > > [WARNING] Using default plugins versions from bindings:
> > > > > > [org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-clean-plugin,
> > > > > > org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-install-plugin,
> > > > > > org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-resources-plugin,
> > > > > > org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-surefire-plugin,
> > > > > > org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-compiler-plugin,
> > > > > > org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-jar-plugin,
> > > > > > org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-deploy-plugin,
> > > > > > org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-site-plugin]
> > > > > > [WARNING]
> > > > > > [WARNING] It is highly recommended to fix these problems because
> > they
> > > > > > threaten the stability of your build.
> > > > > > [WARNING]
> > > > > > [WARNING] For this reason, future Maven versions might no longer
> > > support
> > > > > > building such malformed projects.
> > > > > > [WARNING]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > With this warning, and a parent pom to have an easy fix (instead
> > of 8
> > > > > > plugins versions definition), IMHO, we have what we strongly
> need.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And even better, with this warning in place to avoid people to
> > > continue
> > > > > > to rely on default plugins versions (because of the nasty
> > warning), I
> > > > > > could find upgrading default plugins versions not an issue any
> > > more!!!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Should we try to go this route?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hervé
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Le dimanche 13 janvier 2019, 00:15:38 CET Stephen Connolly a
> écrit
> > :
> > > > > >> The original plan was to make plugin version mandatory. Perhaps
> > > 3.7.0
> > > > > >> is
> > > > > >> the time to do that, with a CLI option (to be removed after
> 3.7.x)
> > > to
> > > > > >> pull
> > > > > >> in the 3.6.x default versions if your pom is missing plugin
> > > versions.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> The warning has been there long enough. Let’s pull the trigger.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Sat 12 Jan 2019 at 21:34, Tibor Digana <
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > >> > I have a strong reason to update Surefire due to new JRE
> > versions
> > > > > >> > have
> > > > > >> > been
> > > > > >> > updated too many times last two years.
> > > > > >> > They required a fix done within a few days and some of them
> are
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> shaking on
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > the chair...
> > > > > >> > Our Maven Core is stable and Java 9+ ready but the obsolete
> > > plugins
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> are
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > not.
> > > > > >> > I want only the same compatibility with default plugins
> because
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> people do
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > not see these plugins as a distinct community. They are both
> > Maven
> > > > > >> > and
> > > > > >> > plugins from us Apache, so they most probably would expect it
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> consistent
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > altogether.
> > > > > >> > Makes sense?
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 7:24 PM Bernd Eckenfels
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> <[hidden email]>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > I think that’s a real bad idea if you have to do local
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> modifications to
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > get to a working build environment. Maven is all about not
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> requiring you
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > to
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > do that (anymore). So even requiring a certain Maven Version
> > > does
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> not
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > fit
> > > > > >> > > in that pattern (although unavoidable if you do not want to
> > work
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> with
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > wrappers).
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > So this means: keep old standard versions and overwrite them
> > > always
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> in
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > poms. (And it means the amount of default versions should be
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> reduced or
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > at
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > least not add new ones)
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > Gruss
> > > > > >> > > Bernd
> > > > > >> > > --
> > > > > >> > > http://bernd.eckenfels.net
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > ________________________________
> > > > > >> > > Von: Robert Scholte <[hidden email]>
> > > > > >> > > Gesendet: Samstag, Januar 12, 2019 5:07 PM
> > > > > >> > > An: Maven Developers List
> > > > > >> > > Betreff: Re: Update versions of all plugins in
> > > default-bindings.xml
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > I had chats with both Adam Bien and Sebastian Daschner
> asking
> > > for a
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > better
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > way to work with a simple high-speed throw-away development
> > pom.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > They are both working a lot with Java EE applications and
> want
> > > to
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> rely
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > on
> > > > > >> > > defaults as much as possible.
> > > > > >> > > So in a way they don't care about plugin versions.
> > > > > >> > > They only case about things in poms that does matter (unique
> > to
> > > > > >> > > that
> > > > > >> > > project): dependencies
> > > > > >> > > However, with Java 9+ stuff they are forced to specify
> plugins
> > > with
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> more
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > recent versions right now.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > So here comes the idea of extensions: you can put it in your
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > maven/lib/ext
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > ONCE and your pom is again as clean as possible.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > This seems to be a common way of work for some kind of
> > > developers
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> and it
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > would make sense if Maven could support this.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > To me default plugin versions are bound to a minor Maven
> > > release,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> not a
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > major.
> > > > > >> > > When starting with Maven and create your first hello world,
> it
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> should
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > work
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > out of the box.
> > > > > >> > > Right now if you are using Java 11, you'll probably hit
> issues
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> because
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > some defaults won't work anymore.
> > > > > >> > > That's a bad thing to me and a valid reason to upgrade the
> > > plugins.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > I do understand Hervé concerns. We should motivate people to
> > > lock
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> their
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > plugins in their pom.
> > > > > >> > > Most of all the packaging-plugin is important. AFAIK all
> 3.0+
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> versions
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > contain plugin bindings, in which case it should be good
> > enough
> > > if
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> that
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > plugin is at least specified.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > thanks,
> > > > > >> > > Robert
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 16:24:31 +0100, Hervé BOUTEMY
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> <[hidden email]
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > original idea, let's try to evaluate :)
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > IMHO this could work for packaging plugins in default
> > > lifecycle,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> that
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > are
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > > defined in default-bindings.xml, but would not for other
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> lifecycles
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > that
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > > are
> > > > > >> > > > configured in components.xml (without copy/pasting content
> > not
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> related
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > to
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > > plugins)
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > I don't think an extension would be easier to use than a
> > > pom.xml,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> it's
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > even
> > > > > >> > > > IMHO worse since you have to create a new file in a new
> > > > > >> > > > directory.
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > one question is: is there a use case that an extension
> would
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> permit
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > that
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > > a
> > > > > >> > > > parent pom would not?
> > > > > >> > > > the only case I see is if a user does not want to change
> his
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> parent
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > pom
> > > > > >> > > > (or
> > > > > >> > > > cannot): since we don't have "pluginManagement import"
> (like
> > > we
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> have
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > for
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > > dependency management).
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > I think for the moment that a parent pom would be more
> > > classical,
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > easier
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > > to
> > > > > >> > > > explain: I don't really see a clear benefit to do the job
> as
> > > an
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > extension
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > > instead, this would IMHO make the change harder for users
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > Regards,
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > Hervé
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > Le samedi 12 janvier 2019, 15:42:57 CET Robert Scholte a
> > > écrit :
> > > > > >> > > >> Just wondering, can this be solved by an extension?
> > > > > >> > > >>
> > > > > >> > > >> So instead of changing this in Maven Core itself, people
> > can
> > > add
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> an
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > >> extension to Maven with the latest+stable releases.
> > > > > >> > > >>
> > > > > >> > > >> Hervé and I already discovered that current focus is
> mainly
> > > on
> > > > > >> > > >> plugins
> > > > > >> > > >> right now. We should also work on extensions.
> > > > > >> > > >>
> > > > > >> > > >> Robert
> > > > > >> > > >>
> > > > > >> > > >> On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 15:37:23 +0100, Hervé BOUTEMY
> > > > > >> > > >> <[hidden email]>
> > > > > >> > > >>
> > > > > >> > > >> wrote:
> > > > > >> > > >> > Le vendredi 11 janvier 2019, 12:55:03 CET Tibor Digana
> a
> > > écrit
> > > > > >> > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > >> >> ok, Herve, the fact is that these plugins have been
> > > updated
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> from
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > >> time to
> > > > > >> > > >>
> > > > > >> > > >> >> time.
> > > > > >> > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > >> > yes, we did it in the past (years ago, look at the
> > history)
> > > > > >> > > >> > and
> > > > > >> > > >> > went
> > > > > >> > > >>
> > > > > >> > > >> to
> > > > > >> > > >>
> > > > > >> > > >> > the
> > > > > >> > > >> > conclusion we should not do that to improve
> > > reproducibility,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> unless
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > >> > there is a
> > > > > >> > > >> > strong reason to do it sometimes on some specific
> plugins
> > > > > >> > > >> > = what I'm trying to explain, for the moment without
> much
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> success
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > >> > What we could do would be to create a new POM to use as
> > > parent
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> POM,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > >> that
> > > > > >> > > >>
> > > > > >> > > >> > would
> > > > > >> > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > >> > define the versions of every plugin from the default
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> lifecycles:
> > > > > >> > this
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > >> > would
> > > > > >> > > >> > avoid to have everybody to write the full list of
> plugins
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> (which is
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > a
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > >> > pain: I
> > > > > >> > > >> > know because in MARCHETYPES-54 [1] I added the list in
> > > Maven
> > > > > >> > > >> > Archetypes...)
> > > > > >> > > >> > We could name it "maven-default-plugins", or if
> somebody
> > > has a
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > better
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > >> > idea.
> > > > > >> > > >> > This way, changing plugins versions would not be tied
> to
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> changing
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > >> Maven
> > > > > >> > > >>
> > > > > >> > > >> > version
> > > > > >> > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > >> > WDYT?
> > > > > >> > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > >> > Regards,
> > > > > >> > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > >> > Hervé
> > > > > >> > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > >> > [1]
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MARCHETYPES-54
> > > > > >> > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > >> >> How can we be on safe side with these updates? What is
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> mandatory
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > >> >> to
> > > > > >> > > >>
> > > > > >> > > >> do
> > > > > >> > > >>
> > > > > >> > > >> >> for
> > > > > >> > > >> >> such upgrade?
> > > > > >> > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > >> >> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 7:41 AM Hervé BOUTEMY <
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > [hidden email]
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > >> >> wrote:
> > > > > >> > > >> >> > As I wrote in many Jira issues over years on this
> > topic,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I'm not
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > in
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > >> >> favor
> > > > > >> > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > >> >> > of
> > > > > >> > > >> >> > that
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > >> >> > To me, staying with the same default plugins
> versions
> > > from
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Maven
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > >> >> version
> > > > > >> > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > >> >> > to
> > > > > >> > > >> >> > Maven version is a feature: nobody should expect to
> > > change
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> his
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > >> Maven
> > > > > >> > > >>
> > > > > >> > > >> >> > version
> > > > > >> > > >> >> > to change the plugins versions
> > > > > >> > > >> >> > The best practice is to define plugins versions in
> > your
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> pom.xml
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > (or
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > >> >> > parent).
> > > > > >> > > >> >> > Getting very old versions of plugins by default is
> the
> > > best
> > > > > >> > > >>
> > > > > >> > > >> additional
> > > > > >> > > >>
> > > > > >> > > >> >> > feature
> > > > > >> > > >> >> > we have after the WARN "plugin version not defined"
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > >> >> > Then IMHO, upgrading default plugins versions is a
> bad
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> idea, is
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > >> >> > a
> > > > > >> > > >>
> > > > > >> > > >> bad
> > > > > >> > > >>
> > > > > >> > > >> >> > message
> > > > > >> > > >> >> > = "you can continue to ignore the WARN on plugins
> > > versions
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> and
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > >> still
> > > > > >> > > >>
> > > > > >> > > >> >> get
> > > > > >> > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > >> >> > newest and latest plugins"
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > >> >> > this leads IMHO to one (bad) reason for people to
> > > require
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Maven
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > >> >> Wrapper
> > > > > >> > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > >> >> > I know, this is counter intuitive, that's why it is
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> required to
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > >> really
> > > > > >> > > >>
> > > > > >> > > >> >> > take a
> > > > > >> > > >> >> > moment to think about it
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > >> >> > Regards,
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > >> >> > Hervé
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > >> >> > Le jeudi 10 janvier 2019, 17:08:57 CET Tibor Digana
> a
> > > écrit
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > >> >> > > Why we use old versions in default-bindings.xml?
> > > > > >> > > >> >> > > Can we update all versions in 3.6.1 release?
> > > > > >> > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> > > >> >> > > Here is MNG-6557 which is related to Surefire but
> I
> > > guess
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> this
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > >> Jira
> > > > > >> > > >>
> > > > > >> > > >> >> > > issue
> > > > > >> > > >> >> > > can be freely related to all plugins.
> > > > > >> > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> > > >> >> > > WDYT?
> > > > > >> > > >> >> > > Any objections to update all plugins and assign
> this
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> issue in
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > >> 3.6.1?
> > > > > >> > > >>
> > > > > >> > > >> >> > > Cheers
> > > > > >> > > >> >> > > Tibor
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > >> >> > 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]
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > >> 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]
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > 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]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > 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]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > >
> > >
> >
>