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