Ok, I was forgetting that you don't have to upgrade to a newer version of the plugins... :-)
It might still be a good idea to have a core maven plugin containing for example the jelly tags so that previous users can also upgrade to newer versions of the plugins. In my case at work, we are using beta 10. We want to move to rc2 and we have started the migration even before rc2 was out (we started about 2 months ago I think). We're still not done. Why? Because the build people are busy with other stuff to fix (like the reactor not working for us on Solaris, etc) and we have only a small number of people dedicated to the build system and with enough knowledge (2.5 persons). Now, we would also like to move to a newer version of the checkstyle plugin because it will allow us to incorporate our custom checks in the build. So we tried using the latest checkstyle plugin with beta 10. It fails because of some change in the xdoc plugin. We haven't followed it further and are instead focusing on upgrading to rc2. Maybe upgrading the xdoc plugin would have been enough but then this one has moved quite a lot and we will probably have other problems. But I do agree with you Brett. Please accept my apologies. I had forgotten about the possibility of not upgrading one's own plugins... :-) -Vincent > -----Original Message----- > From: Brett Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 22 April 2004 09:04 > To: 'Maven Developers List' > Subject: RE: [Q] Setting a property so that it's visible from another > plugin > > > production and you just simply can't break them completely, > > even though it's a beta or rc... :-) > > You don't have to upgrade either. > > > At least, we should make an attempt not to break them. For > > Have I broken anything since rc1 that hasn't been fixed? My goal was 100% > compatibility and I've at least gotten that at work. The 2 things that > broke > in RC2 have been fixed in RC3 and won't happen again. > > > example, we could instead create a jelly taglib. This taglib > > we could check whether such class exists. If it does, use it. > > If not, use some jelly to set the property. > > Ok, so we add such a tag to RC3 and use it in all the plugins. Wait a > second... None of them work with RC2 any more! Isn't that exactly what you > were trying to prevent? :D > > Realistically, nobody would want to stay on RC2 or less when 1.0 is out, > because it is backwards compatible, but its got a whole load of bugfixes. > There's no point wasting time to support it at that level. Now that we are > close to a release of 1.0 and have applied enough polish to make backwards > compatibility achievable, we definitely should strive to do so. > > > Alternatively we could simply provide a patch for versions < > > rc3 in the form of a jar to drop in one's own mavenhome/lib > > for example. > > It's called maven-1.0-rc3.tar.gz. If you are replacing maven.jar that's > what > you've got anyway (Except with newer plugins). > > > It's more complex for us to manage but we should acknowledge > > that some people have been using maven in production for some > > time and they may not be able to switch quickly from, say, > > beta 10 to rc3. > > I agree with you in principle but I've got no idea what you are actually > talking about in context (we were talking about plugins using a new tag - > you can't introduce a compatibility layer in the plugin really). > > If people want to stay on beta-10, that's their choice. I did so with -7 > for > until -10 because it was moving too much. They'll just miss out on the new > plugin changes and that's also their choice. It's ridiculous that we > attempt > to support something that old with the limited resources we have available > to work on 1.0. > > I think everyone still on b10 is waiting for 1.0 before making their > changes > for exactly this reason. > > - Brett --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
