OK, good to know. If you are happy to update jira to target MVERSIONS-144 for 2.0 and commit it to trunk that would be a help.
I just want to get off the 2.2.x compat sauce and get over to 3.0 as a minimum as there are a lot of bugs that are near impossible to fix without being on a consistent dependency resolution API... though Hervé's dependency tree component might be able to solve some of those issues... I have not checked. On 12 November 2012 19:43, Dennis Lundberg <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2012-11-12 13:04, Stephen Connolly wrote: > > Dennis, > > > > The roadmap that I set out for v-m-p only has one issue tagged against > > the next release (2.0). That release is to be the last release > > supporting Maven 2.2.x. After that the next release is 3.0 which will > > require Maven 3.x. > > > > My intention had been to roll 2.0 and 3.0 fairly quickly after each > > other and the previous v-m-p release (1.3 allowing for the JDK 1.4 > > compat bugfix that was 1.3.1) However, things got in the way and I > > didn't get to roll 2.0 in March and 3.0 in April. > > > > I think 2.0 is good to go... though I should probably cut that > > from r15892. If you want to review what has changes since then and see > > what is worth pulling into 2.0 perhaps we should stash the current trunk > > in a branch and get the 2.0 out the door. > > > > I will give a week or so before I start preparing to cut 2.0. I can see > > value in maintaining a 2.0 branch if somebody else wants to take up the > > role of maintainer for that branch after I push it out... just as there > > is the option there for anyone who needs Maven 2.0.x compatibility to > > maintain the 1.x branch of v-m-p... most likely not seen as an issue > > until 2.0 is released. > > > > -Stephen > > Hi Stephen > > My main goal it to get MVERSION-144 into a Maven 2.2 compatible version > of the Versions Plugin. I only started looking at other issues because > the ITs were failing for me using Maven 2.2.1. I don't see any problems > with MVERSION-144 for Maven 2.2.x, do you? > > I've taken a look at the changes after r15892, and AFAICT there is only > a single commit, made by myself, that fixes a typo in Javadoc. So it's > safe to say that that change is backwards compatible :) A release of 2.0 > could be made from trunk as I see it. > > -- > Dennis Lundberg >
