Well, I already wrote it on multiple threads but let try to refine that: 1. (Side note) we can need another thread ;) 2. Surefire 3 is stable and reasons to hold a final release are internal and not user facing so we can do a final 3. JPMS is *not* supported for the reason you mentionned 4. We never managed to get a version policy support so current state is last version + best effort which means for surefire that there is no final version supported (how can it be?) but also means we can do a new final major version each week without much drawback so we can do a 3.0.0 now, a 4.0.0 in a month supporting JPMS and even maybe a 5.0.0 in 2 months dropping our legacy abstraction to align on mainstream ones instead of stacking them (it is some work but hopes it illustrates we can do final releases)
Le jeu. 9 juin 2022 à 03:20, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> a écrit : > On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 at 04:29, David Karr <davidmichaelk...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Now that M7 is released, I have a feeling I know the answer to this, but > > what are your thoughts about when a full release will go out with these > > latest changes? I'm currently evaluating whether we can upgrade our > > internal platform to support Junit 5. As far as we know, M7 will address > > the last problem we were seeing (buffer overflow), and we'll be testing > > that this morning, but my "platform" team only has a small set of > services > > we can easily test platform upgrades with. Our platform is used by a > large > > number of services. Using a "beta" version carries some amount of > > indeterminate risk (sort of redundant), so I have to be more careful > about > > planning for contingencies if we discover unexpected problems from the M7 > > version in other services we don't directly support. Those contingencies > > include staying on Surefire 2.22.0, but still using Spring Boot 2.3.12 > > (upgrading this will be coming soon), and only using JUnit 4. > > > > > Well I think using Mx is because we are a bit conservative :) > version naming is a bit of a chicken and egg problem! > We'd like to have more feedback/tests (even issues :)) etc.. from the real > world but as it's called M* people do not upgrade. > I do not see real issues with junit5. > BUT I think there are still some problems with JPMS and the default (and > non configurable) options used. > Let me explain that. First you need to know surefire (and few other plugins > such compiler, javadoc) rely on a library called plexus-java which from a > list of jars will parse all the module-info files to build a sort of graph > and so build the module-path and the classpath. > 3.0.0-M5 has been released in June 2020 with plexus-java 1.0.5 from > February 2020. > 3.0.0-M6 has been released at the end of March 2022 with plexus-java 1.1.1 > from January 2022. > It's always 2 years between those releases and by the way plenty of changes > in the plexus-java library (because of some issues with compiler, javadoc > etc..) > (With my committer of Jetty project hat) we use JPMS now and moving from > 3.0.0-M5 to M6 is impossible because of > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SUREFIRE-2057 which is breaking > change in plexus-java > and now upgrading to M7 is impossible either because of another issue > (which I need to create a jira for it). (but there is a gist explaining the > problem here > https://gist.github.com/olamy/d651e21fd89b73612a42e3617a1d0261 > ) > Ideally I'd like to have more configurable options for jpms (e.g module > graph resolution) because actually it's based on some assumptions which can > be wrong for some use cases. > I'm currently collecting use cases etc... Then I will create a Jira to ask > for comments (such as what do you want guys to be configurable for jpms: > test scope should be in module-path or classpath, same for provided, do we > need to add automatically providers to the module-path even if it's a test > dependency). > I think this needs to be fixed before removing the M* :) because jpms get > more and more adoptions now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2022 at 4:16 PM Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > Hi > > > The vote has passed. > > > +1 Enrico, Hervé, Michael, Romain, Slawomor, Olivier > > > > > > PMC quorum reached. I will continue the release process. > > > > > > cheers > > > Olivier > > > > > >
