Hi,
I'm the same opinion to upgrade to the most recent Maven 3.X version..
for the plugins... +1 (but I'm ok also to use Maven 3.6.3 as minimum)..
+1 Also the point JDK11 (maybe even higher JDK17?) for Maven 4.0.0 as
minimum runtime requirement..
Kind regards
Karl Heinz Marbaise
On 31.12.23 00:54, Tamás Cservenák wrote:
+1 to Jorge.
As I understand it, this is the "minimal version supported" (prerequisite)
we talk about here. But imo 3.x plugins should compile against lastest 3.x
Maven.
T
On Sun, Dec 31, 2023, 00:35 Jorge Solórzano <jor...@gmail.com> wrote:
I know that a build tool is different from a framework, but we are again
missing the point here, is not about framework vs build tools, the point is
that newer projects already require new Java versions, and if legacy
projects require using an old Java version, then those projects will still
be using Maven 3.x anyway and that is perfectly fine. What should be the
threshold to move to a newer Java version? (I'm talking about using Java 11
on Maven 4.0, not on 3.x).
Sorry I didn't want to hijack this thread for the Java version discussion,
yet I wish to know what is the benefit of "supporting" plugins on older
versions of Maven, I'm asking as a user since I'm not a Maven core
developer, PMC,r committer, just an occasional contributor, and again, I
might be missing something, but what is the benefit of updating plugins on
a project and using an older version of Maven? As a user is weird to me
that Maven versions prior 3.8.x are EOL, yet plugins provide Maven API
compatibility down to 3.2.5.
It seems that is indeed a new challenge to require Maven 3.6.3 as minimal
for core plugins ;)
Regards and Happy New Year!
On Sat, Dec 30, 2023 at 6:30 PM Michael Osipov <micha...@apache.org>
wrote:
Am 2023-12-30 um 16:43 schrieb Jorge Solórzano:
I'm a bit confused here, why would anyone update Maven plugins in a
project
and NOT update Maven Core? Older versions of Maven are EOL, is expected
that Maven Core is backward-compatible on minor releases so updating
Maven
Core should be straightforward. I might be missing something but I
don't
see a scenario where someone updates plugins but does not update Maven
itself, I would expect the opposite, it should be more common to update
Maven core than plugins (although that is just my perception).
The question remains: Why should we use 3.5.4 instead of 3.6.3 as a
minimum
in plugins? don't get me wrong, I don't mind if we use 3.5.4 instead of
3.6.3 if the maintenance/support is the same, but knowing that CI uses
Maven 3.6.3 and newer, and without knowing why plugins should be
supported
on 3.5.4, my vote will go to use 3.6.3.
This discussion reminds me of the minimum required Java version, there
was
even an informal poll
<https://twitter.com/khmarbaise/status/1549429653202518016> with more
than
80% asking for newer Java releases, and I would love to see Maven 4.0
require at least Java 11, but here we are, one year later and still on
Java
8 because some prefer to be working with Java 7 or even Java 6. The
ecosystem is moving forward, SpringBoot, Quarkus, Jakarta EE, and some
dependencies are slowly moving to at least Java 11, if a project
requires
Java 8 (for whatever reason), then it will remain on Maven 3.x, moving
to
Java 11 is conservative enough for Maven 4.0.
Those who are working with JDK less than 8 are already a minority...
https://www.jetbrains.com/lp/devecosystem-2023/java/
Also the usage of JDK 17 is increasing... I expect that JDK21 will
increase over this year...
You are confusing a low-level tool which should be accessible to
everyone compared to a specific framework. Regarding Spring Boot: I
consider that a total dick move dropping javax namespace support for a
huge user base. Regardless of the Java version.
M
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
