Security/Versioning policy proposal

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

Security/Versioning policy proposal

Romain Manni-Bucau
Hi all,

What about starting from something like
http://tomee.apache.org/security/security.html for our versioning policy.

Goal is really to let user plan their versioning policy and ensure there is
no big surprises in the needed upgrades to have bugfixes.

The tomee one spiritI aligns on the 3.6/3.8 jump we just did but adopting
it would make it "user obvious".

Don't think we already have such a page, does it belong to
maven.apache.org/versioning.html or something else?
Wdyt of this kind of page/content?

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

Re: Security/Versioning policy proposal

Elliotte Rusty Harold
On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 4:21 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> What about starting from something like
> http://tomee.apache.org/security/security.html for our versioning policy.
>
> Goal is really to let user plan their versioning policy and ensure there is
> no big surprises in the needed upgrades to have bugfixes.
>

TBH I don't think we have enough developer time and commitment to promise this.

--
Elliotte Rusty Harold
[hidden email]

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Security/Versioning policy proposal

Romain Manni-Bucau
Le dim. 4 avr. 2021 à 12:09, Robert Scholte <[hidden email]> a écrit :

> I doubt we can or should make any promises, only intentions.
> If we would have it, I wonder if it cover our choice to skip 3.7.0.
> To me we need to keep that flexibility.
>
> I want to reverse the approach: what could users expect as differences
> between version x and y.
>
> For Maven shouldn't be more complex than:
> bugfix release-change should be safe "just replace" release with bugfixes
> and internal improvements.
> minor release-change should represent relevant new features or (as we saw
> for 3.8.x) possible breaking builds that can be fixed with configuration.
> major release-change represents changes to the architecture that might
> change the behavior.
> as far as I know this defends all Maven releases up until now.
>

Does not cover the last release - and is actually the issue I'm suffering
from right now and why i'd like we cover this case: security fixes. As of
today it is a mix between patch (bugfix) and minor lines AFAIK but I'd like
we explicit it (even just saying on each line "can include bugfixes").
Said differently: the reverse approach you mention only cover the feature
evolution but not the most important for versioning policy: the security
policy which is the one which hurt right now.
As an user, I want to be able to anticipate the versions i can need staying
as much as possible on a stable version (original version) but upgrading to
get security fixes.
If it is fine for you to mention lines 1 and 2 can include security fixes
i'd be to add this paragraph on the history page maybe?

wdyt?


>
> In case of plugins: the major represents the minimal required version of
> Maven.
>
> Robert
> On 4-4-2021 11:28:30, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi Elliotte,
>
> My goal is to write what we can promise and users can rely on to work.
> If we can only promise any major release will get all security fixes
> whatever are the minor/patch versions, be it.
> I just want what we do to be explicit.
>
> Hervé proposed to reference history page of website, it can be a good start
> with one or two more sentences to solve that.
>
> Le sam. 3 avr. 2021 à 23:50, Elliotte Rusty Harold a
> écrit :
>
> > On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 4:21 PM Romain Manni-Bucau
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > What about starting from something like
> > > http://tomee.apache.org/security/security.html for our versioning
> > policy.
> > >
> > > Goal is really to let user plan their versioning policy and ensure
> there
> > is
> > > no big surprises in the needed upgrades to have bugfixes.
> > >
> >
> > TBH I don't think we have enough developer time and commitment to promise
> > this.
> >
> > --
> > Elliotte Rusty Harold
> > [hidden email]
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Security/Versioning policy proposal

Romain Manni-Bucau
Hmm, general/common asf way of doing is to move forward until users ask
(and if so any branch is patched while a pr is done).
If maven does not follow that practise it cant say "last version will get
the security fix" too because it means "we dont care of users, to get the
cve fix you will have to rewrite your build".
So at least a major stability statement is required IMO with some lts
statement and eol on majors.
Without that using maven sounds random for projects, no?

Le dim. 4 avr. 2021 à 22:13, Bernd Eckenfels <[hidden email]> a
écrit :

> I agree, maven does not need to concern itself with branches as long as it
> stays fairly forward drop-in compatible.
>
> Having said that, things like changing the policy for handling http might
> not be that drop-in, but on the other hand it’s just a config option and
> does not require complicated (plugin) dependency updates.
>
> I do wonder if the version number should better reflect such incompatible
> requirement changes. (And if somebody really wants to provide security
> fixes for those incompatible older branches why not, but I don’t think you
> can require them from a project which does not offer them by themself).
>
>
> --
> http://bernd.eckenfels.net
> ________________________________
> Von: Ralph Goers <[hidden email]>
> Gesendet: Sunday, April 4, 2021 9:55:50 PM
> An: Maven Developers List <[hidden email]>
> Betreff: Re: Security/Versioning policy proposal
>
> More than likely you will get whatever the next version number happens to
> be. I can’t think of a case where Maven needed to go back and patch a prior
> release.  That could happen however, if Maven was modified to require Java
> 11 to run and a security fix had to be applied to the last version
> supporting Java 8.
>
> Ralph
>
> > On Apr 4, 2021, at 6:25 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Le dim. 4 avr. 2021 à 14:10, Robert Scholte <[hidden email]> a
> écrit :
> >
> >> To me all releases can contain security fixes.
> >> Depending on the risk of the CVE we can decide to do a release with only
> >> those fixes (see Maven 3.0.5 and 3.8.1)
> >>
> >
> > I get that but it does not help users to pick versions and to get any
> > stability in their build - which is the goal of this thread.
> > Since you rejected a 3.6.4 for last CVE hitting us I have to admit I
> have a
> > hard time to formalize it.
> > Best I come up is "we'll do what we want" which is hopefully just a
> > complete misinterpretation of what you mean but hope shows how clueless I
> > am with such a statement at the moment.
> > Can you try to refine it please?
> >
> > Concretely, today I'm starting with a 3.8.1, what am I expecting to use
> in
> > 5 years for this project trying to get security fixes and being stable
> (ie
> > 4.x is assumed excluded?)?
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Robert
> >>
> >> On 4-4-2021 12:14:39, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> Le dim. 4 avr. 2021 à 12:09, Robert Scholte a écrit :
> >>
> >>> I doubt we can or should make any promises, only intentions.
> >>> If we would have it, I wonder if it cover our choice to skip 3.7.0.
> >>> To me we need to keep that flexibility.
> >>>
> >>> I want to reverse the approach: what could users expect as differences
> >>> between version x and y.
> >>>
> >>> For Maven shouldn't be more complex than:
> >>> bugfix release-change should be safe "just replace" release with
> bugfixes
> >>> and internal improvements.
> >>> minor release-change should represent relevant new features or (as we
> saw
> >>> for 3.8.x) possible breaking builds that can be fixed with
> configuration.
> >>> major release-change represents changes to the architecture that might
> >>> change the behavior.
> >>> as far as I know this defends all Maven releases up until now.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Does not cover the last release - and is actually the issue I'm
> suffering
> >> from right now and why i'd like we cover this case: security fixes. As
> of
> >> today it is a mix between patch (bugfix) and minor lines AFAIK but I'd
> like
> >> we explicit it (even just saying on each line "can include bugfixes").
> >> Said differently: the reverse approach you mention only cover the
> feature
> >> evolution but not the most important for versioning policy: the security
> >> policy which is the one which hurt right now.
> >> As an user, I want to be able to anticipate the versions i can need
> staying
> >> as much as possible on a stable version (original version) but
> upgrading to
> >> get security fixes.
> >> If it is fine for you to mention lines 1 and 2 can include security
> fixes
> >> i'd be to add this paragraph on the history page maybe?
> >>
> >> wdyt?
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> In case of plugins: the major represents the minimal required version
> of
> >>> Maven.
> >>>
> >>> Robert
> >>> On 4-4-2021 11:28:30, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> >>> Hi Elliotte,
> >>>
> >>> My goal is to write what we can promise and users can rely on to work.
> >>> If we can only promise any major release will get all security fixes
> >>> whatever are the minor/patch versions, be it.
> >>> I just want what we do to be explicit.
> >>>
> >>> Hervé proposed to reference history page of website, it can be a good
> >> start
> >>> with one or two more sentences to solve that.
> >>>
> >>> Le sam. 3 avr. 2021 à 23:50, Elliotte Rusty Harold a
> >>> écrit :
> >>>
> >>>> On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 4:21 PM Romain Manni-Bucau
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What about starting from something like
> >>>>> http://tomee.apache.org/security/security.html for our versioning
> >>>> policy.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Goal is really to let user plan their versioning policy and ensure
> >>> there
> >>>> is
> >>>>> no big surprises in the needed upgrades to have bugfixes.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> TBH I don't think we have enough developer time and commitment to
> >> promise
> >>>> this.
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Elliotte Rusty Harold
> >>>> [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]
>
>