On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 9:00 pm, Anders Hammar <and...@hammar.net> wrote:

> On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 8:37 AM Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 08:05, Robert Scholte <rfscho...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > I think it is pretty impressive that we can say that our plugins still
> > > support a wide range of Maven versions.
> > >
> > > So my vote will be 3.1.0
> > >
> >
> > even if it doesn't happen that much my only concern is what we will do in
> > case of security issue with 3.1.0 what versions will we have to fix?
> > by saying we support 3.1.0 we must be clear (and it seems obvious to me)
> we
> > will only release 3.1.2 in case of security issue (same with other 3.x.x
> > series)
> > but still this can be a lot to maintain/release etc... (well ok still in
> > the very rare case of security issue)
> >
>
> It looks like we're back att the confusion what we're talking about. There
> are two different aspects:
> 1. Minimum version for compatibility (in plugins)
> 2. What Maven version(s) do we support, i.e. provide (important) fixes for
>
> Two very different things IMO. If our plugins are compatible with Maven
> 3.1.0 that DOES NOT mean we will provide fixes for Maven 3.1.x. Most
> likely we will only provide (secuirty) fixes for the latest minor version
> (currently 3.6).


Yes it definitely makes sense and I have definitely missed a discussion
somewhere (sorry too much notifications spam :))

To avoid such confusion is it write somewhere? I’m happy if you can provide
a RTFM


> /Anders
>
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Robert
> > >
> > > On 25-5-2020 22:53:47, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > @All
> > > Can we update the compatibility plan document saying we support from
> > 3.5.4
> > > and 3.6.3.
> > > plugins will use API from 3.5.4 and can use java8 from now (June 2020)
> .
> > > As 3.7.0 is on his way (soon) supporting 3 series seems enough. (with
> > 3.7.0
> > > using java8)
> > > @Robert
> > > As you didn't answer, I wonder if you still have strong opinions?
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 18:46, Michael Osipov wrote:
> > >
> > > > Am 2020-05-24 um 10:41 schrieb Olivier Lamy:
> > > > > On Sat, 23 May 2020 at 21:33, Robert Scholte
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> As discussed before: compatibility should either be 3.3.1 (since
> > 3.3.0
> > > > >> didn't make it) or 3.5.0, we should not include the (highest)
> bugfix
> > > > >> version.
> > > > >>
> > > > > Great this means we can can rid of this hackhish refection stuff
> for
> > > > > aether...
> > > > >
> > > > > you mean we should support 3.3.1 3.3.3 and 3.3.9?
> > > > > by support I mean fixing security issues.
> > > > > so in this case what happen in case of a security issue for 3.3.1
> do
> > we
> > > > > have a to release 3.3.1.1 3.3.3.1 3.3.9.1
> > > > > Not sure I understand what we mean with support?
> > > > > anyway if we say all plugins must be at least 3.3.1 it's good
> > progress
> > > >
> > > > I think we have discussed this before as I have raised this at least
> > > > once this one. The upshot is that we try to support (in terms of API
> > and
> > > > ABI) in Plugins and Components a huge variety of Maven versions, but
> > > > only the last stable minor branch of Maven receives fixes.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Olivier Lamy
> > > http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Olivier Lamy
> > http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
> >
>
-- 
Olivier Lamy
http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy

Reply via email to