Hmm, i'm -0 to change, I dont see much benefit.

That said if we move to say "we don't do branches for maven 4/maven 3" but
move plugins to multimodule builds with shared+mvn3+mvn4 in a single branch
and versions (maven vs plugins) are independent then it is a real pro since
it enables to reduce backports and I'd move that to master/main, everything
else is useless noise IMHO.

Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://x.com/rmannibucau> | .NET Blog
<https://dotnetbirdie.github.io/> | Blog <https://rmannibucau.github.io/> | Old
Blog <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
<https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
<https://www.packtpub.com/en-us/product/java-ee-8-high-performance-9781788473064>
Javaccino <https://javaccino.dev/> founder (Java/.NET service - contact via
linkedin)


Le jeu. 8 oct. 2026 à 18:20, Gerd Aschemann <[email protected]> a écrit :

> Fair questions -- here are numbers on the fork impact, since that's the
> main concern.
>
> Across the 9 repos there are ~620 forks, but the relevant subset is much
> smaller:
>
> - ~74% (about 465) were created BEFORE these repos moved master to the
> Maven 4
>   line (that switch happened in 2024, March-June). Their master is
> therefore
>   ALREADY the Maven 3 line. Bringing upstream master back to Maven 3 puts
> it on
>   the SAME line those forks are on -- it reduces divergence, it doesn't
> create
>   it. They need nothing.
> - That leaves ~155 forks created after the switch (Maven 4 master). Of
> those,
>   only ~100 are active (a push in the last 12 months); the rest are
> untouched.
>
> So the forks that could face a one-time realignment are on the order of
> ~100,
> not 620. And even for them:
>
> - The rename does not touch fork branches -- a fork keeps its branches
> unchanged.
> - Open PRs from forks are retargeted automatically by GitHub when the base
> is
>   renamed (that's exactly why we rename instead of force-push) -- no
> manual PR
>   work.
> - The only manual step is for someone who keeps their fork's master in
> sync with
>   upstream and wants to continue: rename their master to <repo>-4.x and
> track the
>   new master. It's a one-time, documented step.
>
> And for the few who do keep a fork's master in sync with upstream,
> realigning is
> quick -- your current master (Maven 4) becomes upstream's <repo>-4.x, and
> master
> becomes Maven 3:
>
>     git fetch upstream
>     git branch -m master <repo>-4.x       # your Maven 4 line
>     git branch master upstream/master     # the new Maven 3 default
>
> Open PRs move by themselves; the above is only for a long-lived local
> master, and
> it will be in the switch announcement too.
>
> On the benefit -- worth weighing honestly: it's not maintenance burden (the
> branches are the same either way), it's what a casual clone or a new
> contributor
> lands on. The agreed direction is Maven 3 as the default line until Maven 4
> adoption has progressed; today a fresh clone of these repos lands on Maven
> 4,
> which is the opposite.
>
> Per repo, as "forks (created before the 4.x switch = Maven 3 master /
> created
> after = Maven 4 master / of those, active in the last 12 months)":
>
> - maven-compiler-plugin: 198 (156 / 42 / 26)
> - maven-jar-plugin:        80 (64 / 16 / 14)
> - maven-deploy-plugin:     79 (60 / 19 / 10)
> - maven-clean-plugin:      61 (46 / 15 / 8)
> - maven-install-plugin:    49 (39 / 10 / 6)
> - maven-source-plugin:     42 (27 / 15 / 10)
> - maven-filtering:         41 (26 / 15 / 11)
> - maven-resources-plugin:  39 (25 / 14 / 11)
> - maven-archiver:          30 (21 / 9 / 7)
> - Total:                  619 (464 / 155 / 103)
>
> Only the last number on each line ("active Maven-4-master forks") is one
> that
> might want the one-time realign.
>
>
>
>
> > On 8. Oct 2026, at 09:30, Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Is the proposal to force all forks to be updated for both branches ([1])?
> > Is it worth it or do we expect your claude to go on all computers?
> >
> > [1]
> >
> https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/configuring-branches-and-merges-in-your-repository/managing-branches-in-your-repository/renaming-a-branch
> >
> > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > @rmannibucau <https://x.com/rmannibucau> | .NET Blog
> > <https://dotnetbirdie.github.io/> | Blog <https://rmannibucau.github.io/>
> | Old
> > Blog <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
> > <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
> > <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> > <
> https://www.packtpub.com/en-us/product/java-ee-8-high-performance-9781788473064
> >
> > Javaccino <https://javaccino.dev/> founder (Java/.NET service - contact
> via
> > linkedin)
> >
> >
> > Le jeu. 8 oct. 2026 à 09:26, Slawomir Jaranowski <[email protected]>
> a
> > écrit :
> >
> >> On Tue, 6 Oct 2026 at 10:46, Gerd Aschemann <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> Following up on Hervé's call to lead the Git work for maven-sources#57
> <
> >>> https://github.com/apache/maven-sources/issues/57>: a handful of
> >>> Maven-4-specific plugins and shared components currently have their
> >> default
> >>> master branch on the Maven 4 line, with a <repo>-3.x branch for Maven
> 3.
> >>> That is the reverse of our agreed direction — the default should be
> Maven
> >>> 3, with Maven 4 as a separate branch until Maven 4 adoption has
> >> progressed.
> >>> Concretely, it avoids signalling that users moving to Maven 4.0 must
> also
> >>> switch to the new (Maven 4 API) plugins; Maven 4.0 is expected to run
> the
> >>> Maven 3 plugins.
> >>>
> >>> This originates from Hervé Boutemy (tracking issue + #maven Slack
> thread
> >> <
> >>> https://the-asf.slack.com/archives/C7Q9JB404/p1789896368528809>); the
> >>> full plan / runbook is on Confluence <
> >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/85fwGg>.
> >>>
> >>> Scope (plugins / components only, NOT Maven core):
> >>>
> >>> core plugins: clean, compiler, deploy, install, resources
> >>> packaging: jar, source
> >>> shared: archiver, filtering
> >>> special case: plugin-tools — no swap; master stays Maven 3 (drop the
> -3.x
> >>> branch, rename the version to 3.17.0-SNAPSHOT).
> >>> The target branch name stays master (not main); a move to main, if
> ever,
> >>> should be a separate global decision, not a side effect of this.
> >>>
> >>> Method — rename, not force-push:
> >>>
> >>> rename master (Maven 4) → <repo>-4.x
> >>> rename <repo>-3.x (Maven 3) → master
> >>> Renaming the base branch makes GitHub retarget open PRs automatically,
> so
> >>> merge bases and PR history are preserved (~45 open PRs across these
> >> repos).
> >>>
> >>> Impact on forks: renaming the upstream branches does not touch forks. A
> >>> fork's master keeps the old (Maven 4) content and its default branch is
> >>> unchanged; each fork owner realigns their own branches afterwards (e.g.
> >>> rename their master → <repo>-4.x and track the new upstream master =
> >> Maven
> >>> 3). Open PRs from forks keep working — GitHub retargets their base on
> the
> >>> upstream rename. This is a one-time, per-fork manual step; it will be
> >>> documented, and those of us with forks (myself included) will handle
> our
> >>> own as a follow-up.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Did we estimate how many forks will be affected by it?
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Plan:
> >>>
> >>> Execution approach agreed with INFRA: INFRA performs the two
> >>> protected-branch renames per repo by hand; we handle .asf.yaml,
> >> default.xml
> >>> and README. Rehearsed on a throwaway fork first.
> >>> One low-risk first test (maven-filtering, 1 open PR), verify, then the
> >>> rest en bloc — in a single coordinated window, timed with the plugin
> >>> maintainers and outside any open staging/release vote.
> >>> Timing: from ~16 October (after Community over Code).
> >>> Communication: to avoid noise I'll keep updates in this thread rather
> >> than
> >>> per-repo mails — a heads-up when we start with maven-filtering, and one
> >>> when starting the batch and when it is done.
> >>>
> >>> Please raise any objection — here or on maven-sources#57 <
> >>> https://github.com/apache/maven-sources/issues/57> — before we start
> >>> (targeting the weekend of 19 October, after the CoC@Glasgow). Feel
> free
> >>> to comment on Slack or Confluence as well.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks, Gerd
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Gerd Aschemann (er/he) --- Veröffentlichen heißt Verändern (Carmen
> >> Thomas)
> >>> +49/173/3264070 <+49%20173%203264070> <+49%20173%203264070>
> <+49%20173%203264070> --
> >> [email protected] --
> >>> https://aschemann.net
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Sławomir Jaranowski
> >>
>
> --
> Gerd Aschemann (er/he) --- Veröffentlichen heißt Verändern (Carmen Thomas)
> +49/173/3264070 <+49%20173%203264070> -- [email protected] --
> https://aschemann.net
>
>

Reply via email to