We dumped 30 days because that gives a good snapshot of what's happening
right now. If we dumped for example the whole year, then it really blurs
the lines all over the place and things newer will be less prominent just
because they didn't have as much time. 30 days is how we typically bucket
things when we want a form of relative popularity.

As far as toy projects skewing, Tamas is right, the scale of central data
is so large that it's insignificant. Also remember we only counted each IP
once per entry so even projects downloading over and over won't skew the
results.

On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 10:24 AM Xeno Amess <xenoam...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > The raw numbers are a more reasonable picture.
> Elliotte, this is just the begin of maven 4, and maven 4.x is not just for
> current projects, but for projects in the next several years.(and I guess
> nobody here wanna increasing jdk major version during a same maven major
> version?)
> So if we agree that projects in future be more likely for higher jdk
> versions, I think the normalization somehow reasonable...Just IMO
>
> Elliotte Rusty Harold <elh...@ibiblio.org> 于2024年2月22日周四 21:23写道:
>
> > This is all very interesting data for reasons that go well beyond Maven.
> > Thanks!
> >
> > My personal takeaway is that JDK 8 is a much bigger part of the market
> > than I would have guessed and Java 11 and Java 7 are both much less.
> > It looks to me like the Java world is dividing into two camps: The
> > "risk averse, stay with what works and what we know" camp on Java 8
> > and the Bleeding Edge camp on the latest LTS release.
> >
> > It's possible that's not what's really happening. Java 9 really broke
> > compatibility and caused a lot of pain for folks, so it might just be
> > a split between devs who were burned by Java 9+ and devs who weren't.
> >
> > Either way, we started with only the last 30 days of data so I don't
> > think the normalization is reasonable. The lifespan of Java 8, 11, and
> > 17 are all years before this data was taken so it's not like those
> > clients couldn't have moved to Java 17 for some part of the period.
> > The raw numbers are a more reasonable picture. I do not agree that the
> > weighted pie shows what's dead and what's sliding out.
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 4:17 AM Tamás Cservenák <ta...@cservenak.net>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > For start I "normalized" the Java strings to a form like "Java 8" or
> > "Java
> > > 17". This resulted in pretty much similar results as Romain PDF (Azul
> > > report).
> > >
> > > But then realized, we should consider this: Not every LTS existed at
> the
> > > same time span (and we discuss the future here, not the past). Here is
> > some
> > > history I collected:
> > >
> > > - Java 8: Covers strings like "Java 1.8.0-25" (2014) to "Java
> 1.8.0-401"
> > > (2024), that is 10 year span.
> > > - Java 11: Covers strings like "Java 11-ea" (2018) to "Java 11.0.22"
> > > (2024), that is a 6 year span.
> > > - Java 17: Covers strings like "Java 17-ea" (2021) to "Java 17.0.10"
> > > (2024), that is a 3 year span.
> > > - Java 21: Covers strings like "Java 21-ea" (2023) to "Java 21.0.2"
> > (2024),
> > > that is 1 year span.
> > >
> > > So, "normalized" and "weighted" (by lifespan) results are these:
> > > https://gist.github.com/cstamas/d2e5560f24ebe6a667834aa1f44d6fc1
> > >
> > > Weighted pie immediately shows which Java versions are "dead" (are
> > present,
> > > but are "sliding out") and which ones are "alive and kicking" (and
> > adoption
> > > is quite high).
> > >
> > > ---
> > >
> > > Refs:
> > > - https://www.java.com/releases/
> > > - https://openjdk.org/projects/jdk/11/
> > > - https://openjdk.org/projects/jdk/17/
> > > - https://openjdk.org/projects/jdk/21/
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 8:50 AM Tamás Cservenák <ta...@cservenak.net>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Howdy,
> > > >
> > > > Maven UA is created like this:
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/maven/blob/master/maven-core/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/internal/aether/DefaultRepositorySystemSessionFactory.java#L555
> > > >
> > > > I was hoping also for a list of "Apache Maven ..." lines with
> > occurrence
> > > > count.
> > > >
> > > > Now am unsure, for example if any other tool would use "Java X"
> string
> > in
> > > > its own UA, is that collected here?
> > > >
> > > > But let's cook with what we have :)
> > > >
> > > > T
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2024, 08:03 Mateusz Gajewski <
> > > > mateusz.gajew...@starburstdata.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Do you have maven version and java version at the same time report?
> I
> > > >> wonder if old maven is used with old JDK :)
> > > >>
> > > >> On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 23:23 Brian Fox <bri...@infinity.nu> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > Hi everyone. I haven't caught up on this thread but Tamas pinged
> me
> > to
> > > >> get
> > > >> > some usage data from Central. Attached are the Maven versions and
> > JDK
> > > >> > Version counts as reported by User Agent by distinct IP for the
> > last 30
> > > >> > days:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 4:15 PM Hunter C Payne
> > > >> > <hunterpayne2...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >>  I also want to stress that we care about what maven supports far
> > more
> > > >> >> than what it requires to build.  If it needs JDK 17 to build but
> > the
> > > >> jars
> > > >> >> are compliant with Java 8, that's fine with me.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Hunter
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>     On Wednesday, February 21, 2024 at 12:47:33 PM PST, Romain
> > > >> >> Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>  Hmm, not sure im ready for a 200M vanilla build tool even if it
> > would
> > > >> >> have
> > > >> >> been ok legally...
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Le mer. 21 févr. 2024 à 21:41, Hunter C Payne
> > > >> >> <hunterpayne2...@yahoo.com.invalid> a écrit :
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> >  I might be wrong but I understood that shipping the JRE/JVM
> > > >> required a
> > > >> >> > license and this is why most people don't ship with a JVM
> > bundled.
> > > >> But
> > > >> >> > perhaps that has changed since the Oracle v Google/Alphabet
> > trial.
> > > >> >> > Hunter
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >    On Wednesday, February 21, 2024 at 12:00:54 PM PST, Benjamin
> > > >> Marwell
> > > >> >> <
> > > >> >> > bmarw...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >  FWIW, bazel changed its runtime requirement to Java 21.
> > > >> >> > But they are shipping their own Java Runtime, so their users
> > won't
> > > >> >> notice.
> > > >> >> > [1]
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > I think they are the first build tool to do that.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > I say this as a FYI fact only, not implying anything.
> > > >> >> > Make of it what you want.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > - Ben
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > Am Di., 20. Feb. 2024 um 21:50 Uhr schrieb Tamás Cservenák
> > > >> >> > <ta...@cservenak.net>:
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > Howdy,
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > I intentionally used "Maven" here, and not "Maven 4" as I am
> > sure
> > > >> the
> > > >> >> > > majority of Maven users do not run Maven on the same Java
> > version
> > > >> they
> > > >> >> > > target with their build. We do not do that either.
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > Some snippets from Herve (who is the ONLY one doing
> > reproducible
> > > >> >> checks,
> > > >> >> > > kudos for that) votes:
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > Sun, Feb 18, 2024, 9:38 AM
> > > >> >> > > [VOTE] Release Apache Maven Shade Plugin version 3.5.2
> > > >> >> > > Reproducible Build ok: reference build done with JDK 11 on
> *nix
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > Wed, Jan 31, 2024, 5:06 AM
> > > >> >> > > [VOTE] Release Apache Maven JLink Plugin version 3.2.0
> > > >> >> > > Reproducible Builds ok: reference build done on *nix with JDK
> > 21
> > > >> and
> > > >> >> > umask
> > > >> >> > > 022
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > Mon, Jan 8, 2024, 8:29 AM
> > > >> >> > > [VOTE] Release Maven Plugin Tools version 3.11.0
> > > >> >> > > Reproducible Builds ok: reference build done with JDK 8 on
> > Windows
> > > >> >> with
> > > >> >> > > umask
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > Mon, Dec 18, 2023, 8:59 AM
> > > >> >> > > [VOTE] Release Apache Maven Compiler Plugin version 3.12.0
> > > >> >> > > Reproducible Builds ok: reference build done on *nix with JDK
> > 21
> > > >> and
> > > >> >> > umask
> > > >> >> > > 022
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > Mon, Dec 18, 2023, 8:59 AM
> > > >> >> > > [VOTE] Release Apache Maven Compiler Plugin version 3.12.0
> > > >> >> > > Reproducible Builds ok: reference build done on *nix with JDK
> > 21
> > > >> and
> > > >> >> > umask
> > > >> >> > > 022
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > Wed, Nov 29, 2023, 8:16 AM
> > > >> >> > > [VOTE] Apache Maven Build Cache Extension 1.1.0
> > > >> >> > > Reproducible Build ok: reference build done on *nix with JDK
> 11
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > Sun, Nov 19, 2023, 5:17 PM
> > > >> >> > > [VOTE] Release Maven Resolver 1.9.17
> > > >> >> > > Reproducible Build ok: reference build done with JDK 21 on
> *nix
> > > >> with
> > > >> >> > umask
> > > >> >> > > 022
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > Sat, Oct 21, 2023, 4:34 PM
> > > >> >> > > VOTE] Apache Maven 4.0.0-alpha-8 release
> > > >> >> > > Reproducible Build ok: reference build done with JDK 21 on
> *nix
> > > >> with
> > > >> >> > umask
> > > >> >> > > 022
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > Mon, Oct 2, 2023, 9:11 AM
> > > >> >> > > [VOTE] Release Apache Maven 3.9.5
> > > >> >> > > Reproducible not fully ok: reference build done with JDK 17
> on
> > *nix
> > > >> >> and
> > > >> >> > > umask 022
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > ====
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > This CLEARLY shows the tendency:
> > > >> >> > > - Michael does releases on Java 8 (on windows!), he is a
> known
> > > >> >> "aligner"
> > > >> >> > > and windows person :)
> > > >> >> > > - Olivier used the "minimum" required Java version (for build
> > > >> cache).
> > > >> >> > > - Unsure why Herve used Java 11 for the Shade plugin... I
> > mean, he
> > > >> >> could
> > > >> >> > > use 21 but also 8, but he shot for 11 that was EOL at the
> > moment of
> > > >> >> > release.
> > > >> >> > > - The rest is 21.
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > ====
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > So, the question for those refusing anything other than Java
> 8
> > to
> > > >> >> _run_
> > > >> >> > > Maven (or to revert: for those refusing to run Maven on
> "latest
> > > >> LTS",
> > > >> >> > that
> > > >> >> > > is currently 21):
> > > >> >> > > WHY?
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > Thanks
> > > >> >> > > T
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> > > >> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> > > >> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
> > > >>
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Elliotte Rusty Harold
> > elh...@ibiblio.org
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
> >
> >
>

Reply via email to