The vote has passed with the following result : +1 : Evgeny Mandrikov, Olivier Lamy, Fabrice Bellingard, Robert Scholte.
I continue the release process. Thanks guys, Simon Brandhof SonarSource.org SonarSource.com --- On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Robert Scholte <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > In that case I don't see any problems, so please continue. > > - Robert > > ________________________________ > From: [email protected] > Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 11:06:26 +0100 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [mojo-dev] [VOTE] Sonar Maven Plugin 2.0-beta-1 > > Hi Robert, > The main problem is that Maven 3 API is not fully backward-compatible. Sonar mojo was using a component which is not supported anymore in maven 3. > For this reason the lowest version of maven to be used is 3.0. The "automagic" downgrade is made by maven itself. I didn't know this feature before. The mojo can't do anything to change this behavior (and it's fine for me). > About the fact to depend on the lowest possible version of maven, I can't agree more with you. Maven 2 is not dead and must still be supported, as long as it does not prevent from implementing new features. > > Simon > On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 9:07 PM, Evgeny Mandrikov <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 22:51, Robert Scholte <[email protected]> wrote: > > I've got two questions: > "Maven 2 users will be automatically downgraded to version 1.0-beta-2" > Is this really what we want? A user defines a version of the plugin, but because he's using an older version of Maven he's getting an older version through some 'magic'. I don't think we should use this kind of 'automagic'. Why not just fail with the right message and keep the user in control? > > There is no magic - same situation happened with maven-site-plugin : > Two version of plugins - 1.0-beta-2 for Maven < 3.0 and 2.0-beta-1 for Maven 3.0 > Those versions identical from user point of view : Sonar mojo exists to allow people use shortcut "mvn sonar:sonar" instead of upgrading plugin version after each upgrade of Sonar server. > But from technical point of view they are different - compatibility with Maven 3.0 is not possible in the same mojo version due to dependency on Maven 3 API. > > > The other question is more of a general thing for mojo's: > Up untill now we tried to keep the required Maven-version as low as possible so we can serve as much projects as possible. I don't think this should change with the release of Maven3. Of course we should encourage people to use the latest Maven-version, but companies can have strict policies about updating sofware. A maven-plugin is often much easier to upgrade than Maven itself, especially in huge DTAP systems. > IMHO I think we still should try to keep the required Maven version as low as possible, but it should also be able to run with Maven3. If a project requires Maven3 to run with Maven3, we'll, than Maven3 is the lowest possible version. > (maybe we should fork this to a separate thread...) > > - Robert > > > ________________________________ > From: [email protected] > Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 12:50:39 +0100 > To: [email protected] > Subject: [mojo-dev] [VOTE] Sonar Maven Plugin 2.0-beta-1 > > Hi, > This release adds maven 3 support (see http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MOJO-1545). Maven 2 users will be automatically downgraded to version 1.0-beta-2 and should not be impacted. > The staged repository is : https://nexus.codehaus.org/content/repositories/orgcodehausmojo-020/ > Site has been deployed : http://mojo.codehaus.org/sonar-maven-plugin/ > Testing this version requires Sonar 2.4-RC1 : http://dist.sonar.codehaus.org/sonar-2.4-RC1.zip. The plugin explicitly fails if a lesser version of Sonar is used. > The vote is open for 72 hours and will succeed by lazy consensus. > Thanks > Simon > > > -- > Best regards, > Evgeny Mandrikov aka Godin <http://godin.net.ru> > http://twitter.com/_godin_ >
