Timeline for 3.5.0-alpha-2

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
28 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Timeline for 3.5.0-alpha-2

stephenconnolly
I'd like to declare feature freeze for alpha-2 on March 9th.

If a feature does not land in alpha-2 it will not be in beta-1 (i.e. Only bug fixes or rip out features that are causing S1/S2 issues will be in the diff from alpha-2 to beta-1)

I am aiming beta-2 approx 2 weeks after alpha-2 and the GA approx 2 weeks after that.

Sent from my iPhone
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Timeline for 3.5.0-alpha-2

Hervé BOUTEMY
sorry to open such discussion, but given the good feedback on alpha-1 (which
is a good news), are alpha-2 then beta-1 then beta-2 before GA really useful?
Not a little bit too much?
Or are there really changes I don't see that require such detailed
qualification path?

Regards,

Hervé

Le jeudi 2 mars 2017, 21:55:29 CET Stephen Connolly a écrit :

> I'd like to declare feature freeze for alpha-2 on March 9th.
>
> If a feature does not land in alpha-2 it will not be in beta-1 (i.e. Only
> bug fixes or rip out features that are causing S1/S2 issues will be in the
> diff from alpha-2 to beta-1)
>
> I am aiming beta-2 approx 2 weeks after alpha-2 and the GA approx 2 weeks
> after that.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Timeline for 3.5.0-alpha-2

stephenconnolly
I was only planning 1 beta.

And if alpha-2 is good enough and we are confident we can skip the beta...

I want to avoid RCs, we should have one take only for the actual release

On Sat 4 Mar 2017 at 01:47, Hervé BOUTEMY <[hidden email]> wrote:

> sorry to open such discussion, but given the good feedback on alpha-1
> (which
> is a good news), are alpha-2 then beta-1 then beta-2 before GA really
> useful?
> Not a little bit too much?
> Or are there really changes I don't see that require such detailed
> qualification path?
>
> Regards,
>
> Hervé
>
> Le jeudi 2 mars 2017, 21:55:29 CET Stephen Connolly a écrit :
> > I'd like to declare feature freeze for alpha-2 on March 9th.
> >
> > If a feature does not land in alpha-2 it will not be in beta-1 (i.e. Only
> > bug fixes or rip out features that are causing S1/S2 issues will be in
> the
> > diff from alpha-2 to beta-1)
> >
> > I am aiming beta-2 approx 2 weeks after alpha-2 and the GA approx 2 weeks
> > after that.
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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: Timeline for 3.5.0-alpha-2

Hervé BOUTEMY
1 non-final then the final, *if everything happens as expected*: ok, fine for me,
I can live with that extra step :)

Le samedi 4 mars 2017, 08:12:35 CET Stephen Connolly a écrit :

> I was only planning 1 beta.
>
> And if alpha-2 is good enough and we are confident we can skip the beta...
>
> I want to avoid RCs, we should have one take only for the actual release
>
> On Sat 4 Mar 2017 at 01:47, Hervé BOUTEMY <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > sorry to open such discussion, but given the good feedback on alpha-1
> > (which
> > is a good news), are alpha-2 then beta-1 then beta-2 before GA really
> > useful?
> > Not a little bit too much?
> > Or are there really changes I don't see that require such detailed
> > qualification path?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Hervé
> >
> > Le jeudi 2 mars 2017, 21:55:29 CET Stephen Connolly a écrit :
> > > I'd like to declare feature freeze for alpha-2 on March 9th.
> > >
> > > If a feature does not land in alpha-2 it will not be in beta-1 (i.e.
> > > Only
> > > bug fixes or rip out features that are causing S1/S2 issues will be in
> >
> > the
> >
> > > diff from alpha-2 to beta-1)
> > >
> > > I am aiming beta-2 approx 2 weeks after alpha-2 and the GA approx 2
> > > weeks
> > > after that.
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPhone
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > 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



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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Timeline for 3.5.0-alpha-2

Christian Schulte
In reply to this post by stephenconnolly
Am 03/02/17 um 22:55 schrieb Stephen Connolly:
> I'd like to declare feature freeze for alpha-2 on March 9th.
>
> If a feature does not land in alpha-2 it will not be in beta-1 (i.e. Only bug fixes or rip out features that are causing S1/S2 issues will be in the diff from alpha-2 to beta-1)
>
> I am aiming beta-2 approx 2 weeks after alpha-2 and the GA approx 2 weeks after that.

Should we include

<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-6173>

FIX-3.5.0? It has just been reported. It also has an IT pull request. If
no one objects, I'll create a branch and later merge it to master.

Regards,
--
Christian


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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Timeline for 3.5.0-alpha-2

stephenconnolly
We are still in alpha, so bugs with severity S1-S3 are eligible (and S4
with a risk assessment)
Severity is something like this (but as a project we probably need to
define the categories for Maven core)

S1: blows up for everyone, no workaround
S2: blows up under certain circumstances, no workaround. Also feature does
not work, no workaround.
S3: blows up but there is a workaround. Most other bugs
S4: cosmetic issues


On Sat 4 Mar 2017 at 12:34, Christian Schulte <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Am 03/02/17 um 22:55 schrieb Stephen Connolly:
> > I'd like to declare feature freeze for alpha-2 on March 9th.
> >
> > If a feature does not land in alpha-2 it will not be in beta-1 (i.e.
> Only bug fixes or rip out features that are causing S1/S2 issues will be in
> the diff from alpha-2 to beta-1)
> >
> > I am aiming beta-2 approx 2 weeks after alpha-2 and the GA approx 2
> weeks after that.
>
> Should we include
>
> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-6173>
>
> FIX-3.5.0? It has just been reported. It also has an IT pull request. If
> no one objects, I'll create a branch and later merge it to master.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Christian
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Timeline for 3.5.0-alpha-2

Karl Heinz Marbaise-3
In reply to this post by Hervé BOUTEMY
Hi,

I see it the same way...I think we might need an alpha-2 but then I
don't a requirement for further releases before the final GA...


I would like to get two changes into alpha-2 (MNG-6057, MNG-6170) which
fixing things.
MNG-6170 fixes an edge case in relationship with -T XX calling a goal
only and MNG-6057 fixes the problem using ${revision}, ${sha1} and
${changelist} usable in version tag of the pom which gives you the
opportunity to define the version of a whole project including modules
just by a property either in pom itself or via command line.

So I would like to have an alpha-2 for them to get more feedback about
these things...


Kind regards
Karl Heinz Marbaise

On 04/03/17 02:45, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote:

> sorry to open such discussion, but given the good feedback on alpha-1 (which
> is a good news), are alpha-2 then beta-1 then beta-2 before GA really useful?
> Not a little bit too much?
> Or are there really changes I don't see that require such detailed
> qualification path?
>
> Regards,
>
> Hervé
>
> Le jeudi 2 mars 2017, 21:55:29 CET Stephen Connolly a écrit :
>> I'd like to declare feature freeze for alpha-2 on March 9th.
>>
>> If a feature does not land in alpha-2 it will not be in beta-1 (i.e. Only
>> bug fixes or rip out features that are causing S1/S2 issues will be in the
>> diff from alpha-2 to beta-1)
>>
>> I am aiming beta-2 approx 2 weeks after alpha-2 and the GA approx 2 weeks
>> after that.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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]
>
>


Mit freundlichem Gruß
Karl-Heinz Marbaise
--
SoftwareEntwicklung Beratung Schulung    Tel.: +49 (0) 2405 / 415 893
Dipl.Ing.(FH) Karl-Heinz Marbaise        USt.IdNr: DE191347579
Hauptstrasse 177
52146 Würselen                           http://www.soebes.de

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Timeline for 3.5.0-alpha-2

rfscholte
In reply to this post by Hervé BOUTEMY
I've created two more issues:

MNG-6181 Wagon produces a lot of noise at debug loglevel
MNG-6180 groupId has plain color when goal fails

I have no proper solution yet for MNG-6181, maybe we simply need to change  
the loglevel for wagon to INFO.

Robert

On Sat, 04 Mar 2017 02:45:21 +0100, Hervé BOUTEMY <[hidden email]>  
wrote:

> sorry to open such discussion, but given the good feedback on alpha-1  
> (which
> is a good news), are alpha-2 then beta-1 then beta-2 before GA really  
> useful?
> Not a little bit too much?
> Or are there really changes I don't see that require such detailed
> qualification path?
>
> Regards,
>
> Hervé
>
> Le jeudi 2 mars 2017, 21:55:29 CET Stephen Connolly a écrit :
>> I'd like to declare feature freeze for alpha-2 on March 9th.
>>
>> If a feature does not land in alpha-2 it will not be in beta-1 (i.e.  
>> Only
>> bug fixes or rip out features that are causing S1/S2 issues will be in  
>> the
>> diff from alpha-2 to beta-1)
>>
>> I am aiming beta-2 approx 2 weeks after alpha-2 and the GA approx 2  
>> weeks
>> after that.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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: Timeline for 3.5.0-alpha-2

Hervé BOUTEMY
In reply to this post by Christian Schulte
I have one question, which is recurring for every issue: what is the impact?

I understand the logic: it should fix a bug (that is told introduced in Maven
3.3.1), and the bug is explained by the logic behind the javadoc.
But no pointer to any code using this method, and that shows that Maven 3.3.1
does not work any more, when previous version were ok.
Then what is explained here as a bugfix could cause issues for others.

I'm -1 unless I have some details on the impact

Regards,

Hervé

Le samedi 4 mars 2017, 13:33:55 CET Christian Schulte a écrit :

> Am 03/02/17 um 22:55 schrieb Stephen Connolly:
> > I'd like to declare feature freeze for alpha-2 on March 9th.
> >
> > If a feature does not land in alpha-2 it will not be in beta-1 (i.e. Only
> > bug fixes or rip out features that are causing S1/S2 issues will be in
> > the diff from alpha-2 to beta-1)
> >
> > I am aiming beta-2 approx 2 weeks after alpha-2 and the GA approx 2 weeks
> > after that.
> Should we include
>
> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-6173>
>
> FIX-3.5.0? It has just been reported. It also has an IT pull request. If
> no one objects, I'll create a branch and later merge it to master.
>
> Regards,



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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Timeline for 3.5.0-alpha-2

Christian Schulte
Am 03/04/17 um 18:54 schrieb Hervé BOUTEMY:

> I have one question, which is recurring for every issue: what is the impact?
>
> I understand the logic: it should fix a bug (that is told introduced in Maven
> 3.3.1), and the bug is explained by the logic behind the javadoc.
> But no pointer to any code using this method, and that shows that Maven 3.3.1
> does not work any more, when previous version were ok.
> Then what is explained here as a bugfix could cause issues for others.
>
> I'm -1 unless I have some details on the impact
>
> Regards,
>
> Hervé

I added this to the JIRA issue. I do not know if the reporter is
following dev@. This better be discussed in JIRA then, so that the
reporter can easily take part in the discussion.

<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-6173>

Regards,
--
Christian


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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Timeline for 3.5.0-alpha-2

Christian Schulte
In reply to this post by Hervé BOUTEMY
Am 03/04/17 um 18:54 schrieb Hervé BOUTEMY:
> I have one question, which is recurring for every issue: what is the impact?
>
> I understand the logic: it should fix a bug (that is told introduced in Maven
> 3.3.1), and the bug is explained by the logic behind the javadoc.
> But no pointer to any code using this method, and that shows that Maven 3.3.1
> does not work any more, when previous version were ok.
> Then what is explained here as a bugfix could cause issues for others.
>
> I'm -1 unless I have some details on the impact

Please see the linked issues. The reporter did a great job finding out
about when the issue got introduced. His findings are consistent with

<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-5775>

and his analysis also is consistent with

<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-5582>

What impact the changes have, I cannot tell. That's why we should take
this to JIRA.


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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[IT MNG-6173] (was Re: Timeline for 3.5.0-alpha-2)

Christian Schulte
In reply to this post by stephenconnolly
Am 03/04/17 um 14:56 schrieb Stephen Connolly:

> We are still in alpha, so bugs with severity S1-S3 are eligible (and S4
> with a risk assessment)
> Severity is something like this (but as a project we probably need to
> define the categories for Maven core)
>
> S1: blows up for everyone, no workaround
> S2: blows up under certain circumstances, no workaround. Also feature does
> not work, no workaround.
> S3: blows up but there is a workaround. Most other bugs
> S4: cosmetic issues

Seems to be S2 for at least the flatten-maven-plugin. The reporter
updated the description in JIRA mentioning this. Branch MNG-6173 created
in the core and IT repository. I only updated the range in the IT to
read [3.5.0-alpha-1 instead of just [3.5.0.

Regards,
--
Christian


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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Timeline for 3.5.0-alpha-2

stephenconnolly
In reply to this post by Christian Schulte
How are we doing?

Are we ready to freeze?

On Sat 4 Mar 2017 at 19:40, Christian Schulte <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Am 03/04/17 um 18:54 schrieb Hervé BOUTEMY:
> > I have one question, which is recurring for every issue: what is the
> impact?
> >
> > I understand the logic: it should fix a bug (that is told introduced in
> Maven
> > 3.3.1), and the bug is explained by the logic behind the javadoc.
> > But no pointer to any code using this method, and that shows that Maven
> 3.3.1
> > does not work any more, when previous version were ok.
> > Then what is explained here as a bugfix could cause issues for others.
> >
> > I'm -1 unless I have some details on the impact
>
> Please see the linked issues. The reporter did a great job finding out
> about when the issue got introduced. His findings are consistent with
>
> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-5775>
>
> and his analysis also is consistent with
>
> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-5582>
>
> What impact the changes have, I cannot tell. That's why we should take
> this to JIRA.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Timeline for 3.5.0-alpha-2

Christian Schulte
Am 03/10/17 um 00:29 schrieb Stephen Connolly:
> How are we doing?
>
> Are we ready to freeze?

Nothing left to do on my side. There are a couple of issues in JIRA
flagged "in progress" for -alpha-2. Not sure about them.


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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Timeline for 3.5.0-alpha-2

Karl Heinz Marbaise-3
In reply to this post by stephenconnolly

On 10/03/17 00:29, Stephen Connolly wrote:
> How are we doing?
>
> Are we ready to freeze?

Can we wait until monday..

I would like to integrate MNG-6170 (which is ready) and currently
working on IT's for MNG-6057, MNG-6090, MNG-5895 which I would like to
integrate into 3.5.0-alpha-2...

So I can work on the IT's over the weekend...

(Unfortunately I can't take a look into JIRA at the moment seemed to
unavailable currently; INFRA knows already about it.)...

Kind regards
Karl Heinz Marbaise


>
> On Sat 4 Mar 2017 at 19:40, Christian Schulte <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Am 03/04/17 um 18:54 schrieb Hervé BOUTEMY:
>>> I have one question, which is recurring for every issue: what is the
>> impact?
>>>
>>> I understand the logic: it should fix a bug (that is told introduced in
>> Maven
>>> 3.3.1), and the bug is explained by the logic behind the javadoc.
>>> But no pointer to any code using this method, and that shows that Maven
>> 3.3.1
>>> does not work any more, when previous version were ok.
>>> Then what is explained here as a bugfix could cause issues for others.
>>>
>>> I'm -1 unless I have some details on the impact
>>
>> Please see the linked issues. The reporter did a great job finding out
>> about when the issue got introduced. His findings are consistent with
>>
>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-5775>
>>
>> and his analysis also is consistent with
>>
>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-5582>
>>
>> What impact the changes have, I cannot tell. That's why we should take
>> this to JIRA.
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>> --
> Sent from my phone
>


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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Timeline for 3.5.0-alpha-2

stephenconnolly
Ok  no problem

On Fri 10 Mar 2017 at 06:22, Karl Heinz Marbaise <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 10/03/17 00:29, Stephen Connolly wrote:
> > How are we doing?
> >
> > Are we ready to freeze?
>
> Can we wait until monday..
>
> I would like to integrate MNG-6170 (which is ready) and currently
> working on IT's for MNG-6057, MNG-6090, MNG-5895 which I would like to
> integrate into 3.5.0-alpha-2...
>
> So I can work on the IT's over the weekend...
>
> (Unfortunately I can't take a look into JIRA at the moment seemed to
> unavailable currently; INFRA knows already about it.)...
>
> Kind regards
> Karl Heinz Marbaise
>
>
> >
> > On Sat 4 Mar 2017 at 19:40, Christian Schulte <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> Am 03/04/17 um 18:54 schrieb Hervé BOUTEMY:
> >>> I have one question, which is recurring for every issue: what is the
> >> impact?
> >>>
> >>> I understand the logic: it should fix a bug (that is told introduced in
> >> Maven
> >>> 3.3.1), and the bug is explained by the logic behind the javadoc.
> >>> But no pointer to any code using this method, and that shows that Maven
> >> 3.3.1
> >>> does not work any more, when previous version were ok.
> >>> Then what is explained here as a bugfix could cause issues for others.
> >>>
> >>> I'm -1 unless I have some details on the impact
> >>
> >> Please see the linked issues. The reporter did a great job finding out
> >> about when the issue got introduced. His findings are consistent with
> >>
> >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-5775>
> >>
> >> and his analysis also is consistent with
> >>
> >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-5582>
> >>
> >> What impact the changes have, I cannot tell. That's why we should take
> >> this to JIRA.
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>
> >> --
> > Sent from my phone
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Timeline for 3.5.0-alpha-2

rfscholte
Benedikt has started a vote for CLI-1.4[1], which should be used as  
replacement for our own MergedCommandLine.
I'll leave it up to you if this is worth adding to alpha-2

Robert

[1]  
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/0c13e68cfd4e0b88550973b036a14660dcc30289027190ea1d048e56@%3Cdev.commons.apache.org%3E

On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 08:26:40 +0100, Stephen Connolly  
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Ok  no problem
>
> On Fri 10 Mar 2017 at 06:22, Karl Heinz Marbaise <[hidden email]>  
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 10/03/17 00:29, Stephen Connolly wrote:
>> > How are we doing?
>> >
>> > Are we ready to freeze?
>>
>> Can we wait until monday..
>>
>> I would like to integrate MNG-6170 (which is ready) and currently
>> working on IT's for MNG-6057, MNG-6090, MNG-5895 which I would like to
>> integrate into 3.5.0-alpha-2...
>>
>> So I can work on the IT's over the weekend...
>>
>> (Unfortunately I can't take a look into JIRA at the moment seemed to
>> unavailable currently; INFRA knows already about it.)...
>>
>> Kind regards
>> Karl Heinz Marbaise
>>
>>
>> >
>> > On Sat 4 Mar 2017 at 19:40, Christian Schulte <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Am 03/04/17 um 18:54 schrieb Hervé BOUTEMY:
>> >>> I have one question, which is recurring for every issue: what is the
>> >> impact?
>> >>>
>> >>> I understand the logic: it should fix a bug (that is told  
>> introduced in
>> >> Maven
>> >>> 3.3.1), and the bug is explained by the logic behind the javadoc.
>> >>> But no pointer to any code using this method, and that shows that  
>> Maven
>> >> 3.3.1
>> >>> does not work any more, when previous version were ok.
>> >>> Then what is explained here as a bugfix could cause issues for  
>> others.
>> >>>
>> >>> I'm -1 unless I have some details on the impact
>> >>
>> >> Please see the linked issues. The reporter did a great job finding  
>> out
>> >> about when the issue got introduced. His findings are consistent with
>> >>
>> >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-5775>
>> >>
>> >> and his analysis also is consistent with
>> >>
>> >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-5582>
>> >>
>> >> What impact the changes have, I cannot tell. That's why we should  
>> take
>> >> this to JIRA.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> >>
>> >> --
>> > Sent from my phone
>> >
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>> --
> Sent from my phone

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Timeline for 3.5.0-alpha-2 / MNG-6057

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

So after I finalized the implementation which seemed to be ok for
now...the IT's are currently not working based on particular reason
(explanations later).

I would like to know the opinion of the Maven DEV's about this:

The following scenario:

This feature has been introduced in Maven 3.2.1 but with some issues
(ordering in reactor etc.).

By using this branch MNG-6057 (MNG-6090, MNG-5895) you can use things
like ${revision}, ${sha1} and/or ${changelist} in your version tag of
your pom.
This means you can define the revision by simply using it for the whole
multi module build (also for a single project) and you can defined a
revision of your artifacts by simply using a property in your pom file
(only a single one). Take a look at an example[1].

You can build everything. It is also possible to overwrite the revision
via command line like this: mvn clean package -Drevision=2.4.5 or using
.mvn/maven.config file..for this instead of using the pom file property.

The only thing which is cirtical from my point of view if you will do an
mvn install or mvn deploy...

The problem is simply that at the moment the pom's which will be
installed into local cache or in a remote repository having the
${revision} etc. in their version tag and the placeholders
revision,sha1,changelist are not being replaced with the current literal
version.

This can be solved by using the flatten-maven-plugin (I think this
should be integrated into Maven itself in the furture maybe in Maven
3.6.0?? but this is a different story.).

If you take this change you can define the version of your build
artifacts either by command line or with a single property which several
people asked for...which would make it very convenient to build
different branches by using different versions ...etc.

This leaves some questions from my side:

1. How can I use the flatten-maven-plugin inside the IT's ? (It looks
like I oversight something here).

2. WDYT about? Should I postpone that and improve the solution?

3. Should I integrate the current state into the current 3.5.0-alpha-2 ?


Kind regards
Karl Heinz Marbaise
[1|: https://github.com/khmarbaise/javaee/tree/mvn321

On 10/03/17 08:26, Stephen Connolly wrote:

> Ok  no problem
>
> On Fri 10 Mar 2017 at 06:22, Karl Heinz Marbaise <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 10/03/17 00:29, Stephen Connolly wrote:
>>> How are we doing?
>>>
>>> Are we ready to freeze?
>>
>> Can we wait until monday..
>>
>> I would like to integrate MNG-6170 (which is ready) and currently
>> working on IT's for MNG-6057, MNG-6090, MNG-5895 which I would like to
>> integrate into 3.5.0-alpha-2...
>>
>> So I can work on the IT's over the weekend...
>>
>> (Unfortunately I can't take a look into JIRA at the moment seemed to
>> unavailable currently; INFRA knows already about it.)...
>>
>> Kind regards
>> Karl Heinz Marbaise
>>
>>
>>>
>>> On Sat 4 Mar 2017 at 19:40, Christian Schulte <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Am 03/04/17 um 18:54 schrieb Hervé BOUTEMY:
>>>>> I have one question, which is recurring for every issue: what is the
>>>> impact?
>>>>>
>>>>> I understand the logic: it should fix a bug (that is told introduced in
>>>> Maven
>>>>> 3.3.1), and the bug is explained by the logic behind the javadoc.
>>>>> But no pointer to any code using this method, and that shows that Maven
>>>> 3.3.1
>>>>> does not work any more, when previous version were ok.
>>>>> Then what is explained here as a bugfix could cause issues for others.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm -1 unless I have some details on the impact
>>>>
>>>> Please see the linked issues. The reporter did a great job finding out
>>>> about when the issue got introduced. His findings are consistent with
>>>>
>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-5775>
>>>>
>>>> and his analysis also is consistent with
>>>>
>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-5582>
>>>>
>>>> What impact the changes have, I cannot tell. That's why we should take
>>>> this to JIRA.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>
>>>> --
>>> Sent from my phone
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>> --
> Sent from my phone
>


Mit freundlichem Gruß
Karl-Heinz Marbaise
--
SoftwareEntwicklung Beratung Schulung    Tel.: +49 (0) 2405 / 415 893
Dipl.Ing.(FH) Karl-Heinz Marbaise        USt.IdNr: DE191347579
Hauptstrasse 177
52146 Würselen                           http://www.soebes.de

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Timeline for 3.5.0-alpha-2 / MNG-6057

stephenconnolly
On Sun 12 Mar 2017 at 14:36, Karl Heinz Marbaise <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> So after I finalized the implementation which seemed to be ok for
> now...the IT's are currently not working based on particular reason
> (explanations later).
>
> I would like to know the opinion of the Maven DEV's about this:
>
> The following scenario:
>
> This feature has been introduced in Maven 3.2.1 but with some issues
> (ordering in reactor etc.).
>
> By using this branch MNG-6057 (MNG-6090, MNG-5895) you can use things
> like ${revision}, ${sha1} and/or ${changelist} in your version tag of
> your pom.
> This means you can define the revision by simply using it for the whole
> multi module build (also for a single project) and you can defined a
> revision of your artifacts by simply using a property in your pom file
> (only a single one). Take a look at an example[1].
>
> You can build everything. It is also possible to overwrite the revision
> via command line like this: mvn clean package -Drevision=2.4.5 or using
> .mvn/maven.config file..for this instead of using the pom file property.
>
> The only thing which is cirtical from my point of view if you will do an
> mvn install or mvn deploy...
>
> The problem is simply that at the moment the pom's which will be
> installed into local cache or in a remote repository having the
> ${revision} etc. in their version tag and the placeholders
> revision,sha1,changelist are not being replaced with the current literal
> version.
>
> This can be solved by using the flatten-maven-plugin (I think this
> should be integrated into Maven itself in the furture maybe in Maven
> 3.6.0?? but this is a different story.).
>
> If you take this change you can define the version of your build
> artifacts either by command line or with a single property which several
> people asked for...which would make it very convenient to build
> different branches by using different versions ...etc.
>
> This leaves some questions from my side:
>
> 1. How can I use the flatten-maven-plugin inside the IT's ? (It looks
> like I oversight something here).
>

I think you just need to pull it in with one of the bootstrap projects,
then it will. E available


> 2. WDYT about? Should I postpone that and improve the solution?


If you cannot *consume* published artifacts with this feature *after* your
change... that would be a no... if the situation is same as 3.3.9 for
consumers in a different reactor, the question becomes have you fixed bugs?


>
> 3. Should I integrate the current state into the current 3.5.0-alpha-2 ?


If you are adding a feature, -alpha-2 is your last chance to land in 3.5.0,
-beta-1 is only if we need bug-fixes on alpha-2 (or have to revert a
feature that we cannot fix in time)

If you are fixing bugs, and you feel the risk of adding new bugs is low,
then we can consider merging.

The question is really: how is this change making 3.5.0 different from 3.3.9


>
>
> Kind regards
> Karl Heinz Marbaise
> [1|: https://github.com/khmarbaise/javaee/tree/mvn321
>
> On 10/03/17 08:26, Stephen Connolly wrote:
> > Ok  no problem
> >
> > On Fri 10 Mar 2017 at 06:22, Karl Heinz Marbaise <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On 10/03/17 00:29, Stephen Connolly wrote:
> >>> How are we doing?
> >>>
> >>> Are we ready to freeze?
> >>
> >> Can we wait until monday..
> >>
> >> I would like to integrate MNG-6170 (which is ready) and currently
> >> working on IT's for MNG-6057, MNG-6090, MNG-5895 which I would like to
> >> integrate into 3.5.0-alpha-2...
> >>
> >> So I can work on the IT's over the weekend...
> >>
> >> (Unfortunately I can't take a look into JIRA at the moment seemed to
> >> unavailable currently; INFRA knows already about it.)...
> >>
> >> Kind regards
> >> Karl Heinz Marbaise
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> On Sat 4 Mar 2017 at 19:40, Christian Schulte <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Am 03/04/17 um 18:54 schrieb Hervé BOUTEMY:
> >>>>> I have one question, which is recurring for every issue: what is the
> >>>> impact?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I understand the logic: it should fix a bug (that is told introduced
> in
> >>>> Maven
> >>>>> 3.3.1), and the bug is explained by the logic behind the javadoc.
> >>>>> But no pointer to any code using this method, and that shows that
> Maven
> >>>> 3.3.1
> >>>>> does not work any more, when previous version were ok.
> >>>>> Then what is explained here as a bugfix could cause issues for
> others.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm -1 unless I have some details on the impact
> >>>>
> >>>> Please see the linked issues. The reporter did a great job finding out
> >>>> about when the issue got introduced. His findings are consistent with
> >>>>
> >>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-5775>
> >>>>
> >>>> and his analysis also is consistent with
> >>>>
> >>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-5582>
> >>>>
> >>>> What impact the changes have, I cannot tell. That's why we should take
> >>>> this to JIRA.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>> Sent from my phone
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>
> >> --
> > Sent from my phone
> >
>
>
> Mit freundlichem Gruß
> Karl-Heinz Marbaise
> --
> SoftwareEntwicklung Beratung Schulung    Tel.: +49 (0) 2405 / 415 893
> Dipl.Ing.(FH) Karl-Heinz Marbaise        USt.IdNr: DE191347579
> Hauptstrasse 177
> 52146 Würselen                           http://www.soebes.de
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Timeline for 3.5.0-alpha-2 / MNG-6057

Hervé BOUTEMY
IIUC

You can publish such poms with ${revision}, ${sha1} and/or ${changelist} in
central from the early begining: even MNG-5576 just removed a warning

Then the new commit just make it work better, in more complex multi-module
situations: looks reasonable

I just pushed 2 commits: the first one is to be squashed with previous commit,
since there is some formatting changes that just add unwanted complexity when
reviewing the change.
The other one is just to use the new constants in model validator change done
in MNG-5576


I think this is a fix that could go in alpha-2

Regards,

Hervé

Le dimanche 12 mars 2017, 15:56:09 CET Stephen Connolly a écrit :

> On Sun 12 Mar 2017 at 14:36, Karl Heinz Marbaise <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > So after I finalized the implementation which seemed to be ok for
> > now...the IT's are currently not working based on particular reason
> > (explanations later).
> >
> > I would like to know the opinion of the Maven DEV's about this:
> >
> > The following scenario:
> >
> > This feature has been introduced in Maven 3.2.1 but with some issues
> > (ordering in reactor etc.).
> >
> > By using this branch MNG-6057 (MNG-6090, MNG-5895) you can use things
> > like ${revision}, ${sha1} and/or ${changelist} in your version tag of
> > your pom.
> > This means you can define the revision by simply using it for the whole
> > multi module build (also for a single project) and you can defined a
> > revision of your artifacts by simply using a property in your pom file
> > (only a single one). Take a look at an example[1].
> >
> > You can build everything. It is also possible to overwrite the revision
> > via command line like this: mvn clean package -Drevision=2.4.5 or using
> > .mvn/maven.config file..for this instead of using the pom file property.
> >
> > The only thing which is cirtical from my point of view if you will do an
> > mvn install or mvn deploy...
> >
> > The problem is simply that at the moment the pom's which will be
> > installed into local cache or in a remote repository having the
> > ${revision} etc. in their version tag and the placeholders
> > revision,sha1,changelist are not being replaced with the current literal
> > version.
> >
> > This can be solved by using the flatten-maven-plugin (I think this
> > should be integrated into Maven itself in the furture maybe in Maven
> > 3.6.0?? but this is a different story.).
> >
> > If you take this change you can define the version of your build
> > artifacts either by command line or with a single property which several
> > people asked for...which would make it very convenient to build
> > different branches by using different versions ...etc.
> >
> > This leaves some questions from my side:
> >
> > 1. How can I use the flatten-maven-plugin inside the IT's ? (It looks
> > like I oversight something here).
>
> I think you just need to pull it in with one of the bootstrap projects,
> then it will. E available
>
> > 2. WDYT about? Should I postpone that and improve the solution?
>
> If you cannot *consume* published artifacts with this feature *after* your
> change... that would be a no... if the situation is same as 3.3.9 for
> consumers in a different reactor, the question becomes have you fixed bugs?
>
> > 3. Should I integrate the current state into the current 3.5.0-alpha-2 ?
>
> If you are adding a feature, -alpha-2 is your last chance to land in 3.5.0,
> -beta-1 is only if we need bug-fixes on alpha-2 (or have to revert a
> feature that we cannot fix in time)
>
> If you are fixing bugs, and you feel the risk of adding new bugs is low,
> then we can consider merging.
>
> The question is really: how is this change making 3.5.0 different from 3.3.9
> > Kind regards
> > Karl Heinz Marbaise
> > [1|: https://github.com/khmarbaise/javaee/tree/mvn321
> >
> > On 10/03/17 08:26, Stephen Connolly wrote:
> > > Ok  no problem
> > >
> > > On Fri 10 Mar 2017 at 06:22, Karl Heinz Marbaise <[hidden email]>
> >
> > wrote:
> > >> On 10/03/17 00:29, Stephen Connolly wrote:
> > >>> How are we doing?
> > >>>
> > >>> Are we ready to freeze?
> > >>
> > >> Can we wait until monday..
> > >>
> > >> I would like to integrate MNG-6170 (which is ready) and currently
> > >> working on IT's for MNG-6057, MNG-6090, MNG-5895 which I would like to
> > >> integrate into 3.5.0-alpha-2...
> > >>
> > >> So I can work on the IT's over the weekend...
> > >>
> > >> (Unfortunately I can't take a look into JIRA at the moment seemed to
> > >> unavailable currently; INFRA knows already about it.)...
> > >>
> > >> Kind regards
> > >> Karl Heinz Marbaise
> > >>
> > >>> On Sat 4 Mar 2017 at 19:40, Christian Schulte <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >>>> Am 03/04/17 um 18:54 schrieb Hervé BOUTEMY:
> > >>>>> I have one question, which is recurring for every issue: what is the
> > >>>>
> > >>>> impact?
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> I understand the logic: it should fix a bug (that is told introduced
> >
> > in
> >
> > >>>> Maven
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> 3.3.1), and the bug is explained by the logic behind the javadoc.
> > >>>>> But no pointer to any code using this method, and that shows that
> >
> > Maven
> >
> > >>>> 3.3.1
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> does not work any more, when previous version were ok.
> > >>>>> Then what is explained here as a bugfix could cause issues for
> >
> > others.
> >
> > >>>>> I'm -1 unless I have some details on the impact
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Please see the linked issues. The reporter did a great job finding
> > >>>> out
> > >>>> about when the issue got introduced. His findings are consistent with
> > >>>>
> > >>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-5775>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> and his analysis also is consistent with
> > >>>>
> > >>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-5582>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> What impact the changes have, I cannot tell. That's why we should
> > >>>> take
> > >>>> this to JIRA.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > >>>>
> > >>>> --
> > >>>
> > >>> Sent from my phone
> > >>
> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >
> > > Sent from my phone
> >
> > Mit freundlichem Gruß
> > Karl-Heinz Marbaise
> > --
> > SoftwareEntwicklung Beratung Schulung    Tel.: +49 (0) 2405 / 415 893
> > Dipl.Ing.(FH) Karl-Heinz Marbaise        USt.IdNr: DE191347579
> > Hauptstrasse 177
> > 52146 Würselen                           http://www.soebes.de
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >
> > --
>
> Sent from my phone



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

12