Re: [DISCUSS] Java version for Maven

[Elliotte Rusty Harold]

On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 7:24 PM Benjamin Marwell  wrote:
>
> > 1. The Java version required by the project being built. That is, the
> byte code and API level of the project.
> > 2. The Java version used to compile the project.
> > 3. The Java version used to run Maven.
> > 4. The Java version used to compile and build Maven itself.
>
> > For #1, it is mandatory to support Java 8.
>
> You can compile Java 8 bytecode with a Java 8 JDK from a Maven running
> Java 17+ using toolchains
> or with the -release flag from any version 9+.
>
> > For #2, reproducible builds mean we have to be able to support what
> > customers are using and that can be anything from Java 8 - 21. It is
> > not sufficient to say Java 21 can compile to Java 8 since that does
> > not produce the same byte code as compiling with Java 8.
>
> That is the point.
> If you built the project with JDK 21 using the -release=8, you can get
> the same (reproducible) output with a similar OS and JDK 21.
>

No, that's not the point. You are claiming that #1 and #2 are the
same. I do not believe they are the same. Compiling for Java 8 with
Java 17 -release 8 is not the same as compiling with javac from JDK 8.
They do not produce the same byte code. There is a need to compile
*with* JDK 8, not just compile *for* JDK 8.

Toolchains support using JDK 8 to compile even though JDK 17 is
executing Maven, which does handle this. Unfortunately toolchains are
poorly designed, badly documented, and not widely understood within
the community. I'm trying to improve some of the docs for toolchains,
but that only goes so far. There's a fundamental problem that
toolchains are incompatible with a hermetic, one click build.

-- 
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

Re: [DISCUSS] Java version for Maven

[Tamás Cservenák]

On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 1:33 PM Elliotte Rusty Harold 
wrote:

> but that only goes so far. There's a fundamental problem that
> toolchains are incompatible with a hermetic, one click build.
>
>
Why so? Could you elaborate?

T





> --
> 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
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Java version for Maven

[Ceki Gulcu]

On 2/25/2024, 2:49 PM Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:


>> For #2, reproducible builds mean we have to be able to support what
>> customers are using and that can be anything from Java 8 - 21. It is
>> not sufficient to say Java 21 can compile to Java 8 since that does
>> not produce the same byte code as compiling with Java 8.


On 2/26/2024 8:22 PM, Benjamin Marwell wrote:


> That is the point.
> If you built the project with JDK 21 using the -release=8, you can get
> the same (reproducible) output with a similar OS and JDK 21.

I wrote about 6 or 7 paragraphs of word salad to essentially convey the
same message as Benjamin.

If the goal is verification of the artifact with respect to the code in
the software repo, the verifier needs the same JDK version as the
version used to produce the artifact being checked in order to compare
binaries. The Java version can be any Java version and only depends on
the producer of the artifact (the owner of the artifact). Obviously,
this Java version needs to be equal or higher than the "release"
version, but that is it.

Claiming that if the release version is 8, the Java version must also be
8 seems quite incorrect.


-- 
Ceki Gülcü

Sponsoring SLF4J/logback/reload4j at https://github.com/sponsors/qos-ch

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Java version for Maven

[John Neffenger]

On 2/26/24 11:42 AM, Basil Crow wrote:

We had a similar conversation in the Jenkins community, and I wrote up
our conclusions here:


We also had a similar conversation in the NetBeans community, with the 
final vote to drop JDK 8 (vote result: 20 to 1.5). See here:


[VOTE][RESULT] Minimum JDK build and run policy (dropping JDK 8)
https://lists.apache.org/thread/oq8bof3owctq0ot6xwk03n3w45d09zcc

In particular, see the comments from James Gosling:

Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition)
https://lists.apache.org/thread/sspm6fy1xq0jn2k8lfprn47v69g88jvh

  "So….  In my opinion, JDK8 must die."
  "Stop the unholy contortions to coexist.  Kill it.  Nail its coffin 
closed.  Do not look back."


I couldn't agree more. :-)

John

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Java version for Maven

[Romain Manni-Bucau]

Not sure we'll converge guys but shouldnt we make a vote? Seems we all
understand the impacts technically so maybe time to decide else we'll still
be there in a year.

Le mar. 27 févr. 2024 à 16:41, John Neffenger  a écrit :

> On 2/26/24 11:42 AM, Basil Crow wrote:
> > We had a similar conversation in the Jenkins community, and I wrote up
> > our conclusions here:
>
> We also had a similar conversation in the NetBeans community, with the
> final vote to drop JDK 8 (vote result: 20 to 1.5). See here:
>
> [VOTE][RESULT] Minimum JDK build and run policy (dropping JDK 8)
> https://lists.apache.org/thread/oq8bof3owctq0ot6xwk03n3w45d09zcc
>
> In particular, see the comments from James Gosling:
>
> Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition)
> https://lists.apache.org/thread/sspm6fy1xq0jn2k8lfprn47v69g88jvh
>
>"So….  In my opinion, JDK8 must die."
>"Stop the unholy contortions to coexist.  Kill it.  Nail its coffin
> closed.  Do not look back."
>
> I couldn't agree more. :-)
>
> John
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Java version for Maven

[Benjamin Marwell]

> Compiling for Java 8 with
> Java 17 -release 8 is not the same as compiling with javac from JDK 8.
> They do not produce the same byte code. There is a need to compile
> *with* JDK 8, not just compile *for* JDK 8.

And when would that be needed?


On Tue, 27 Feb 2024, 13:33 Elliotte Rusty Harold, 
wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 7:24 PM Benjamin Marwell 
> wrote:
> >
> > > 1. The Java version required by the project being built. That is, the
> > byte code and API level of the project.
> > > 2. The Java version used to compile the project.
> > > 3. The Java version used to run Maven.
> > > 4. The Java version used to compile and build Maven itself.
> >
> > > For #1, it is mandatory to support Java 8.
> >
> > You can compile Java 8 bytecode with a Java 8 JDK from a Maven running
> > Java 17+ using toolchains
> > or with the -release flag from any version 9+.
> >
> > > For #2, reproducible builds mean we have to be able to support what
> > > customers are using and that can be anything from Java 8 - 21. It is
> > > not sufficient to say Java 21 can compile to Java 8 since that does
> > > not produce the same byte code as compiling with Java 8.
> >
> > That is the point.
> > If you built the project with JDK 21 using the -release=8, you can get
> > the same (reproducible) output with a similar OS and JDK 21.
> >
>
> No, that's not the point. You are claiming that #1 and #2 are the
> same. I do not believe they are the same. Compiling for Java 8 with
> Java 17 -release 8 is not the same as compiling with javac from JDK 8.
> They do not produce the same byte code. There is a need to compile
> *with* JDK 8, not just compile *for* JDK 8.
>
> Toolchains support using JDK 8 to compile even though JDK 17 is
> executing Maven, which does handle this. Unfortunately toolchains are
> poorly designed, badly documented, and not widely understood within
> the community. I'm trying to improve some of the docs for toolchains,
> but that only goes so far. There's a fundamental problem that
> toolchains are incompatible with a hermetic, one click build.
>
> --
> 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
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Java version for Maven

[Aleksandar Kurtakov]

On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 6:13 PM Romain Manni-Bucau 
wrote:

> Not sure we'll converge guys but shouldnt we make a vote? Seems we all
> understand the impacts technically so maybe time to decide else we'll still
> be there in a year.
>

This is exactly what I try in the Eclipse community - vote, majority wins
and move on.
If there is one thing I'm 100% sure now is that no one from one camp will
convince someone from the other camp so all the endless discussions bring
only extra stress.


>
> Le mar. 27 févr. 2024 à 16:41, John Neffenger  a écrit :
>
> > On 2/26/24 11:42 AM, Basil Crow wrote:
> > > We had a similar conversation in the Jenkins community, and I wrote up
> > > our conclusions here:
> >
> > We also had a similar conversation in the NetBeans community, with the
> > final vote to drop JDK 8 (vote result: 20 to 1.5). See here:
> >
> > [VOTE][RESULT] Minimum JDK build and run policy (dropping JDK 8)
> > https://lists.apache.org/thread/oq8bof3owctq0ot6xwk03n3w45d09zcc
> >
> > In particular, see the comments from James Gosling:
> >
> > Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition)
> > https://lists.apache.org/thread/sspm6fy1xq0jn2k8lfprn47v69g88jvh
> >
> >"So….  In my opinion, JDK8 must die."
> >"Stop the unholy contortions to coexist.  Kill it.  Nail its coffin
> > closed.  Do not look back."
> >
> > I couldn't agree more. :-)
> >
> > John
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
> >
> >
>


-- 
Aleksandar Kurtakov
Red Hat Eclipse Team

Re: [DISCUSS] Java version for Maven

[sebb]

On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 at 17:01, Benjamin Marwell  wrote:
>
> > Compiling for Java 8 with
> > Java 17 -release 8 is not the same as compiling with javac from JDK 8.
> > They do not produce the same byte code. There is a need to compile
> > *with* JDK 8, not just compile *for* JDK 8.
>
> And when would that be needed?

Isn't that needed for reproducible builds?

>
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2024, 13:33 Elliotte Rusty Harold, 
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 7:24 PM Benjamin Marwell 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > 1. The Java version required by the project being built. That is, the
> > > byte code and API level of the project.
> > > > 2. The Java version used to compile the project.
> > > > 3. The Java version used to run Maven.
> > > > 4. The Java version used to compile and build Maven itself.
> > >
> > > > For #1, it is mandatory to support Java 8.
> > >
> > > You can compile Java 8 bytecode with a Java 8 JDK from a Maven running
> > > Java 17+ using toolchains
> > > or with the -release flag from any version 9+.
> > >
> > > > For #2, reproducible builds mean we have to be able to support what
> > > > customers are using and that can be anything from Java 8 - 21. It is
> > > > not sufficient to say Java 21 can compile to Java 8 since that does
> > > > not produce the same byte code as compiling with Java 8.
> > >
> > > That is the point.
> > > If you built the project with JDK 21 using the -release=8, you can get
> > > the same (reproducible) output with a similar OS and JDK 21.
> > >
> >
> > No, that's not the point. You are claiming that #1 and #2 are the
> > same. I do not believe they are the same. Compiling for Java 8 with
> > Java 17 -release 8 is not the same as compiling with javac from JDK 8.
> > They do not produce the same byte code. There is a need to compile
> > *with* JDK 8, not just compile *for* JDK 8.
> >
> > Toolchains support using JDK 8 to compile even though JDK 17 is
> > executing Maven, which does handle this. Unfortunately toolchains are
> > poorly designed, badly documented, and not widely understood within
> > the community. I'm trying to improve some of the docs for toolchains,
> > but that only goes so far. There's a fundamental problem that
> > toolchains are incompatible with a hermetic, one click build.
> >
> > --
> > 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
> >
> >

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Java version for Maven

[Xeno Amess]

whose vote would count and what be the majority:)
for example should my vote count? or not?
or just some committers? but why just committers(or not)(as some of them
might have less contributions even than non-committers)?
or just pmc?
or everyone share 1 vote(wow I don't think it shall work this way)


Aleksandar Kurtakov  于2024年2月28日周三 01:15写道：

> On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 6:13 PM Romain Manni-Bucau 
> wrote:
>
> > Not sure we'll converge guys but shouldnt we make a vote? Seems we all
> > understand the impacts technically so maybe time to decide else we'll
> still
> > be there in a year.
> >
>
> This is exactly what I try in the Eclipse community - vote, majority wins
> and move on.
> If there is one thing I'm 100% sure now is that no one from one camp will
> convince someone from the other camp so all the endless discussions bring
> only extra stress.
>
>
> >
> > Le mar. 27 févr. 2024 à 16:41, John Neffenger  a
> écrit :
> >
> > > On 2/26/24 11:42 AM, Basil Crow wrote:
> > > > We had a similar conversation in the Jenkins community, and I wrote
> up
> > > > our conclusions here:
> > >
> > > We also had a similar conversation in the NetBeans community, with the
> > > final vote to drop JDK 8 (vote result: 20 to 1.5). See here:
> > >
> > > [VOTE][RESULT] Minimum JDK build and run policy (dropping JDK 8)
> > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/oq8bof3owctq0ot6xwk03n3w45d09zcc
> > >
> > > In particular, see the comments from James Gosling:
> > >
> > > Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition)
> > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/sspm6fy1xq0jn2k8lfprn47v69g88jvh
> > >
> > >"So….  In my opinion, JDK8 must die."
> > >"Stop the unholy contortions to coexist.  Kill it.  Nail its coffin
> > > closed.  Do not look back."
> > >
> > > I couldn't agree more. :-)
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> > > -
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Aleksandar Kurtakov
> Red Hat Eclipse Team
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Java version for Maven

[Aleksandar Kurtakov]

On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 8:16 PM Xeno Amess  wrote:

> whose vote would count and what be the majority:)
> for example should my vote count? or not?
> or just some committers? but why just committers(or not)(as some of them
> might have less contributions even than non-committers)?
> or just pmc?
> or everyone share 1 vote(wow I don't think it shall work this way)
>

This is something that should be defined by Apache Foundation and/or Maven
PMC. I don't plan to neither dive into the discussion more nor to try
imposing our rules on another project.
If the project believes that continuing such discussion in circles brings
anything good - so be it.



>
>
> Aleksandar Kurtakov  于2024年2月28日周三 01:15写道：
>
> > On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 6:13 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <
> rmannibu...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Not sure we'll converge guys but shouldnt we make a vote? Seems we all
> > > understand the impacts technically so maybe time to decide else we'll
> > still
> > > be there in a year.
> > >
> >
> > This is exactly what I try in the Eclipse community - vote, majority wins
> > and move on.
> > If there is one thing I'm 100% sure now is that no one from one camp will
> > convince someone from the other camp so all the endless discussions bring
> > only extra stress.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Le mar. 27 févr. 2024 à 16:41, John Neffenger  a
> > écrit :
> > >
> > > > On 2/26/24 11:42 AM, Basil Crow wrote:
> > > > > We had a similar conversation in the Jenkins community, and I wrote
> > up
> > > > > our conclusions here:
> > > >
> > > > We also had a similar conversation in the NetBeans community, with
> the
> > > > final vote to drop JDK 8 (vote result: 20 to 1.5). See here:
> > > >
> > > > [VOTE][RESULT] Minimum JDK build and run policy (dropping JDK 8)
> > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/oq8bof3owctq0ot6xwk03n3w45d09zcc
> > > >
> > > > In particular, see the comments from James Gosling:
> > > >
> > > > Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition)
> > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/sspm6fy1xq0jn2k8lfprn47v69g88jvh
> > > >
> > > >"So….  In my opinion, JDK8 must die."
> > > >"Stop the unholy contortions to coexist.  Kill it.  Nail its
> coffin
> > > > closed.  Do not look back."
> > > >
> > > > I couldn't agree more. :-)
> > > >
> > > > John
> > > >
> > > > -
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Aleksandar Kurtakov
> > Red Hat Eclipse Team
> >
>


-- 
Aleksandar Kurtakov
Red Hat Eclipse Team

Re: [DISCUSS] Java version for Maven

[Romain Manni-Bucau]

Plain standard asf votes - or under the vote manager rules as allowed by
asf if it is agreed but means another discussion.

I dont care much the details but keeping energy for this thread starts to
be more negative on the community than anything positive IMHO so hope we
close it with a decision then move on.
Not everybody will be happy but we'll stop cycles hopefully and unhappy
people will be able to work on solutions after anyway.

Le mar. 27 févr. 2024 à 20:02, Aleksandar Kurtakov  a
écrit :

> On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 8:16 PM Xeno Amess  wrote:
>
> > whose vote would count and what be the majority:)
> > for example should my vote count? or not?
> > or just some committers? but why just committers(or not)(as some of them
> > might have less contributions even than non-committers)?
> > or just pmc?
> > or everyone share 1 vote(wow I don't think it shall work this way)
> >
>
> This is something that should be defined by Apache Foundation and/or Maven
> PMC. I don't plan to neither dive into the discussion more nor to try
> imposing our rules on another project.
> If the project believes that continuing such discussion in circles brings
> anything good - so be it.
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > Aleksandar Kurtakov  于2024年2月28日周三 01:15写道：
> >
> > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 6:13 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <
> > rmannibu...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Not sure we'll converge guys but shouldnt we make a vote? Seems we
> all
> > > > understand the impacts technically so maybe time to decide else we'll
> > > still
> > > > be there in a year.
> > > >
> > >
> > > This is exactly what I try in the Eclipse community - vote, majority
> wins
> > > and move on.
> > > If there is one thing I'm 100% sure now is that no one from one camp
> will
> > > convince someone from the other camp so all the endless discussions
> bring
> > > only extra stress.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Le mar. 27 févr. 2024 à 16:41, John Neffenger  a
> > > écrit :
> > > >
> > > > > On 2/26/24 11:42 AM, Basil Crow wrote:
> > > > > > We had a similar conversation in the Jenkins community, and I
> wrote
> > > up
> > > > > > our conclusions here:
> > > > >
> > > > > We also had a similar conversation in the NetBeans community, with
> > the
> > > > > final vote to drop JDK 8 (vote result: 20 to 1.5). See here:
> > > > >
> > > > > [VOTE][RESULT] Minimum JDK build and run policy (dropping JDK 8)
> > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/oq8bof3owctq0ot6xwk03n3w45d09zcc
> > > > >
> > > > > In particular, see the comments from James Gosling:
> > > > >
> > > > > Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition)
> > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/sspm6fy1xq0jn2k8lfprn47v69g88jvh
> > > > >
> > > > >"So….  In my opinion, JDK8 must die."
> > > > >"Stop the unholy contortions to coexist.  Kill it.  Nail its
> > coffin
> > > > > closed.  Do not look back."
> > > > >
> > > > > I couldn't agree more. :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > John
> > > > >
> > > > >
> -
> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Aleksandar Kurtakov
> > > Red Hat Eclipse Team
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Aleksandar Kurtakov
> Red Hat Eclipse Team
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Java version for Maven

[Xeno Amess]

> people will be able to work on solutions after anyway.
Agreed as they can maintain a fork anyway if they really need.

From: Romain Manni-Bucau 
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2024 3:50:31 AM
To: Maven Developers List 
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Java version for Maven

Plain standard asf votes - or under the vote manager rules as allowed by
asf if it is agreed but means another discussion.

I dont care much the details but keeping energy for this thread starts to
be more negative on the community than anything positive IMHO so hope we
close it with a decision then move on.
Not everybody will be happy but we'll stop cycles hopefully and unhappy
people will be able to work on solutions after anyway.

Le mar. 27 févr. 2024 à 20:02, Aleksandar Kurtakov  a
écrit :

> On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 8:16 PM Xeno Amess  wrote:
>
> > whose vote would count and what be the majority:)
> > for example should my vote count? or not?
> > or just some committers? but why just committers(or not)(as some of them
> > might have less contributions even than non-committers)?
> > or just pmc?
> > or everyone share 1 vote(wow I don't think it shall work this way)
> >
>
> This is something that should be defined by Apache Foundation and/or Maven
> PMC. I don't plan to neither dive into the discussion more nor to try
> imposing our rules on another project.
> If the project believes that continuing such discussion in circles brings
> anything good - so be it.
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > Aleksandar Kurtakov  于2024年2月28日周三 01:15写道：
> >
> > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 6:13 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <
> > rmannibu...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Not sure we'll converge guys but shouldnt we make a vote? Seems we
> all
> > > > understand the impacts technically so maybe time to decide else we'll
> > > still
> > > > be there in a year.
> > > >
> > >
> > > This is exactly what I try in the Eclipse community - vote, majority
> wins
> > > and move on.
> > > If there is one thing I'm 100% sure now is that no one from one camp
> will
> > > convince someone from the other camp so all the endless discussions
> bring
> > > only extra stress.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Le mar. 27 févr. 2024 à 16:41, John Neffenger  a
> > > écrit :
> > > >
> > > > > On 2/26/24 11:42 AM, Basil Crow wrote:
> > > > > > We had a similar conversation in the Jenkins community, and I
> wrote
> > > up
> > > > > > our conclusions here:
> > > > >
> > > > > We also had a similar conversation in the NetBeans community, with
> > the
> > > > > final vote to drop JDK 8 (vote result: 20 to 1.5). See here:
> > > > >
> > > > > [VOTE][RESULT] Minimum JDK build and run policy (dropping JDK 8)
> > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/oq8bof3owctq0ot6xwk03n3w45d09zcc
> > > > >
> > > > > In particular, see the comments from James Gosling:
> > > > >
> > > > > Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition)
> > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/sspm6fy1xq0jn2k8lfprn47v69g88jvh
> > > > >
> > > > >"So….  In my opinion, JDK8 must die."
> > > > >"Stop the unholy contortions to coexist.  Kill it.  Nail its
> > coffin
> > > > > closed.  Do not look back."
> > > > >
> > > > > I couldn't agree more. :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > John
> > > > >
> > > > >
> -
> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Aleksandar Kurtakov
> > > Red Hat Eclipse Team
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Aleksandar Kurtakov
> Red Hat Eclipse Team
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Java version for Maven

[Hervé Boutemy]

Le mardi 27 février 2024, 18:33:43 CET sebb a écrit :
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 at 17:01, Benjamin Marwell  wrote:
> > > Compiling for Java 8 with
> > > Java 17 -release 8 is not the same as compiling with javac from JDK 8.
> > > They do not produce the same byte code.
+1 that's a fact

> > > There is a need to compile *with* JDK 8, not just compile *for* JDK 8.
I'd also add: do you also expect to run the unit and integration tests with JDK 
8?
could running be decoupled from compiling?

> > 
> > And when would that be needed?
I'd say it's a question of taste/aversion to risk: I personally fully trust JDK 
17 --release 8 to not produce anything wrong against JDK 8, but some may not 
trust
That's why I personally would accept building with JDK 17 --release 8 but would 
like to run UT/ITs with JDK 8

> 
> Isn't that needed for reproducible builds?

simply no

one concrete example from so many, just picking a random one: plexus-utils, 
that targets Java 8 bytecode 
https://github.com/jvm-repo-rebuild/reproducible-central/blob/master/content/org/codehaus/plexus/plexus-utils/README.md

as you can see, some releases were done with JDK 11, some with JDK 17, some on 
*nix and others on Windows
Each is reproducible, even if the required environment to get the same binaries 
as the reference published to Maven Central for each is different

while at it, I'll add:
this does not mean that for each release, any environment different from the 
reference one gives a bad output;
it just gives a different binary that is expected to be functionnally 
equivalent = what we blindly trusted before we checked binaries



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Java version for Maven

[Hervé Boutemy]

Le mardi 27 février 2024, 13:32:36 CET Elliotte Rusty Harold a écrit :
> Toolchains support using JDK 8 to compile even though JDK 17 is
> executing Maven, which does handle this. Unfortunately toolchains are
> poorly designed, badly documented, and not widely understood within
> the community. I'm trying to improve some of the docs for toolchains,
> but that only goes so far. There's a fundamental problem that
> toolchains are incompatible with a hermetic, one click build.

+1 (taking apart the "poorly designed" aspect)

that's why toolchain improvement is one necessary enabler

another one is plugins prerequisites history

in the whole discussion, I did not find any other enabler: please chime in if 
you saw one



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Java version for Maven

[Hervé Boutemy]

Le lundi 26 février 2024, 13:42:19 CET Ceki Gulcu a écrit :
> Hello Bernd,
> 
> I was unaware of the capabilities of the release flag. Thank you for
> explaining.

a proof that even capabilities like --release flag from JDK 9 (JEP 247 https://
openjdk.org/jeps/247) need to be promoted because it's not sufficiently known



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Java version for Maven

[Romain Manni-Bucau]

Hi Hervé

Im not sure why there is this belief toolchain improvement is needed, this
is NOT needed and CI already bypass it so for me this is not an enabler,
more a blocker IRL.
Let's improve plugins if they dont enable executable/env config but
toolchain is just a part of the execution of so troublesome to maintain
that I cant see it as a solution to any problem.

Le mer. 28 févr. 2024 à 08:03, Hervé Boutemy  a
écrit :

> Le mardi 27 février 2024, 13:32:36 CET Elliotte Rusty Harold a écrit :
> > Toolchains support using JDK 8 to compile even though JDK 17 is
> > executing Maven, which does handle this. Unfortunately toolchains are
> > poorly designed, badly documented, and not widely understood within
> > the community. I'm trying to improve some of the docs for toolchains,
> > but that only goes so far. There's a fundamental problem that
> > toolchains are incompatible with a hermetic, one click build.
>
> +1 (taking apart the "poorly designed" aspect)
>
> that's why toolchain improvement is one necessary enabler
>
> another one is plugins prerequisites history
>
> in the whole discussion, I did not find any other enabler: please chime in
> if
> you saw one
>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
>
>

[VOTE] Require Java 17 for Maven 4

[Benjamin Marwell]

Hi Maven Devs/Users/Committers and PMC members!

After several discussions on the mailing lists, I would like to
start a vote in favour of setting the minimal Java bytecode target
of Maven-Core 4 to 17 and hence require Java 17 for Maven 4.

This is a procedural majority vote [1*]:
You can also vote with fractions and negative votes are not vetoes.

Please also notice:
* Maven 3 will stay at Java 8 no matter what.
* We may raise Maven 4 to JDK 21 later if we feel like it (depending
on the release date).
  This is not part of this vote.
* The linked PR is not part of this vote (this is not a code vote).
  But you may take a look at it to understand the intended change.

PR: https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/1430

Maven-Parent will not be raised with this vote, the other PR is not
part of this vote.

Please refrain from starting discussions in this thread, but do
include a reasoning on downvotes and feel free to start a new
discussion on the mailing list, or comment on the existing ones.

---

Vote open for 72 hours:

[ ] +1 (set JDK17 min version for Maven 4.x)
[ ] +0
[ ] -1 (please include reasoning)

---

- Ben

[1*]: https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Require Java 17 for Maven 4

[Stephane Nicoll]

+1 (non binding)

On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 8:31 AM Benjamin Marwell 
wrote:

> Hi Maven Devs/Users/Committers and PMC members!
>
> After several discussions on the mailing lists, I would like to
> start a vote in favour of setting the minimal Java bytecode target
> of Maven-Core 4 to 17 and hence require Java 17 for Maven 4.
>
> This is a procedural majority vote [1*]:
> You can also vote with fractions and negative votes are not vetoes.
>
> Please also notice:
> * Maven 3 will stay at Java 8 no matter what.
> * We may raise Maven 4 to JDK 21 later if we feel like it (depending
> on the release date).
>   This is not part of this vote.
> * The linked PR is not part of this vote (this is not a code vote).
>   But you may take a look at it to understand the intended change.
>
> PR: https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/1430
>
> Maven-Parent will not be raised with this vote, the other PR is not
> part of this vote.
>
> Please refrain from starting discussions in this thread, but do
> include a reasoning on downvotes and feel free to start a new
> discussion on the mailing list, or comment on the existing ones.
>
> ---
>
> Vote open for 72 hours:
>
> [ ] +1 (set JDK17 min version for Maven 4.x)
> [ ] +0
> [ ] -1 (please include reasoning)
>
> ---
>
> - Ben
>
> [1*]: https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Java version for Maven

[Benjamin Marwell]

At this point, we have discussed many aspects.
Please feel to vote:

User List:
https://lists.apache.org/thread/ty321ns72qc6l26bjy58d9430ofg2w5t

Dev List:
https://lists.apache.org/thread/vngchrr3owd92v9y09lyfjjhwkl5hvtn

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Require Java 17 for Maven 4

[Romain Manni-Bucau]

+1

Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau  |  Blog
 | Old Blog
 | Github  |
LinkedIn  | Book



Le mer. 28 févr. 2024 à 08:35, Stephane Nicoll 
a écrit :

> +1 (non binding)
>
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 8:31 AM Benjamin Marwell 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Maven Devs/Users/Committers and PMC members!
> >
> > After several discussions on the mailing lists, I would like to
> > start a vote in favour of setting the minimal Java bytecode target
> > of Maven-Core 4 to 17 and hence require Java 17 for Maven 4.
> >
> > This is a procedural majority vote [1*]:
> > You can also vote with fractions and negative votes are not vetoes.
> >
> > Please also notice:
> > * Maven 3 will stay at Java 8 no matter what.
> > * We may raise Maven 4 to JDK 21 later if we feel like it (depending
> > on the release date).
> >   This is not part of this vote.
> > * The linked PR is not part of this vote (this is not a code vote).
> >   But you may take a look at it to understand the intended change.
> >
> > PR: https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/1430
> >
> > Maven-Parent will not be raised with this vote, the other PR is not
> > part of this vote.
> >
> > Please refrain from starting discussions in this thread, but do
> > include a reasoning on downvotes and feel free to start a new
> > discussion on the mailing list, or comment on the existing ones.
> >
> > ---
> >
> > Vote open for 72 hours:
> >
> > [ ] +1 (set JDK17 min version for Maven 4.x)
> > [ ] +0
> > [ ] -1 (please include reasoning)
> >
> > ---
> >
> > - Ben
> >
> > [1*]: https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Require Java 17 for Maven 4

[Anders Hammar]

+1

/Anders

On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 8:30 AM Benjamin Marwell  wrote:
>
> Hi Maven Devs/Users/Committers and PMC members!
>
> After several discussions on the mailing lists, I would like to
> start a vote in favour of setting the minimal Java bytecode target
> of Maven-Core 4 to 17 and hence require Java 17 for Maven 4.
>
> This is a procedural majority vote [1*]:
> You can also vote with fractions and negative votes are not vetoes.
>
> Please also notice:
> * Maven 3 will stay at Java 8 no matter what.
> * We may raise Maven 4 to JDK 21 later if we feel like it (depending
> on the release date).
>   This is not part of this vote.
> * The linked PR is not part of this vote (this is not a code vote).
>   But you may take a look at it to understand the intended change.
>
> PR: https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/1430
>
> Maven-Parent will not be raised with this vote, the other PR is not
> part of this vote.
>
> Please refrain from starting discussions in this thread, but do
> include a reasoning on downvotes and feel free to start a new
> discussion on the mailing list, or comment on the existing ones.
>
> ---
>
> Vote open for 72 hours:
>
> [ ] +1 (set JDK17 min version for Maven 4.x)
> [ ] +0
> [ ] -1 (please include reasoning)
>
> ---
>
> - Ben
>
> [1*]: https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>
> -
> 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

Re: [VOTE] Require Java 17 for Maven 4

[Sylwester Lachiewicz]

+1
Sylwester

śr., 28 lut 2024 o 08:40 Romain Manni-Bucau 
napisał(a):

> +1
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau  |  Blog
>  | Old Blog
>  | Github <
> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> LinkedIn  | Book
> <
> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
> >
>
>
> Le mer. 28 févr. 2024 à 08:35, Stephane Nicoll 
> a écrit :
>
> > +1 (non binding)
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 8:31 AM Benjamin Marwell 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Maven Devs/Users/Committers and PMC members!
> > >
> > > After several discussions on the mailing lists, I would like to
> > > start a vote in favour of setting the minimal Java bytecode target
> > > of Maven-Core 4 to 17 and hence require Java 17 for Maven 4.
> > >
> > > This is a procedural majority vote [1*]:
> > > You can also vote with fractions and negative votes are not vetoes.
> > >
> > > Please also notice:
> > > * Maven 3 will stay at Java 8 no matter what.
> > > * We may raise Maven 4 to JDK 21 later if we feel like it (depending
> > > on the release date).
> > >   This is not part of this vote.
> > > * The linked PR is not part of this vote (this is not a code vote).
> > >   But you may take a look at it to understand the intended change.
> > >
> > > PR: https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/1430
> > >
> > > Maven-Parent will not be raised with this vote, the other PR is not
> > > part of this vote.
> > >
> > > Please refrain from starting discussions in this thread, but do
> > > include a reasoning on downvotes and feel free to start a new
> > > discussion on the mailing list, or comment on the existing ones.
> > >
> > > ---
> > >
> > > Vote open for 72 hours:
> > >
> > > [ ] +1 (set JDK17 min version for Maven 4.x)
> > > [ ] +0
> > > [ ] -1 (please include reasoning)
> > >
> > > ---
> > >
> > > - Ben
> > >
> > > [1*]: https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> > >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Require Java 17 for Maven 4

[zhongming hua]

+1 (non binding)

Romain Manni-Bucau  于2024年2月28日周三 15:40写道：
>
> +1
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau  |  Blog
>  | Old Blog
>  | Github  |
> LinkedIn  | Book
> 
>
>
> Le mer. 28 févr. 2024 à 08:35, Stephane Nicoll 
> a écrit :
>
> > +1 (non binding)
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 8:31 AM Benjamin Marwell 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Maven Devs/Users/Committers and PMC members!
> > >
> > > After several discussions on the mailing lists, I would like to
> > > start a vote in favour of setting the minimal Java bytecode target
> > > of Maven-Core 4 to 17 and hence require Java 17 for Maven 4.
> > >
> > > This is a procedural majority vote [1*]:
> > > You can also vote with fractions and negative votes are not vetoes.
> > >
> > > Please also notice:
> > > * Maven 3 will stay at Java 8 no matter what.
> > > * We may raise Maven 4 to JDK 21 later if we feel like it (depending
> > > on the release date).
> > >   This is not part of this vote.
> > > * The linked PR is not part of this vote (this is not a code vote).
> > >   But you may take a look at it to understand the intended change.
> > >
> > > PR: https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/1430
> > >
> > > Maven-Parent will not be raised with this vote, the other PR is not
> > > part of this vote.
> > >
> > > Please refrain from starting discussions in this thread, but do
> > > include a reasoning on downvotes and feel free to start a new
> > > discussion on the mailing list, or comment on the existing ones.
> > >
> > > ---
> > >
> > > Vote open for 72 hours:
> > >
> > > [ ] +1 (set JDK17 min version for Maven 4.x)
> > > [ ] +0
> > > [ ] -1 (please include reasoning)
> > >
> > > ---
> > >
> > > - Ben
> > >
> > > [1*]: https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> > >
> >

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Require Java 17 for Maven 4

[Christoph Läubrich]

+1 as a user
+1 as Project Lead of Tycho that already requires java 17 for a few 
years now and soon will be Java 21
+1 as Project Lead of m2e that already is on Java 17 and needs to 
maintain some code in Java 8 to retain support for Maven


Am 28.02.24 um 08:30 schrieb Benjamin Marwell:

Hi Maven Devs/Users/Committers and PMC members!

After several discussions on the mailing lists, I would like to
start a vote in favour of setting the minimal Java bytecode target
of Maven-Core 4 to 17 and hence require Java 17 for Maven 4.

This is a procedural majority vote [1*]:
You can also vote with fractions and negative votes are not vetoes.

Please also notice:
* Maven 3 will stay at Java 8 no matter what.
* We may raise Maven 4 to JDK 21 later if we feel like it (depending
on the release date).
   This is not part of this vote.
* The linked PR is not part of this vote (this is not a code vote).
   But you may take a look at it to understand the intended change.

PR: https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/1430

Maven-Parent will not be raised with this vote, the other PR is not
part of this vote.

Please refrain from starting discussions in this thread, but do
include a reasoning on downvotes and feel free to start a new
discussion on the mailing list, or comment on the existing ones.

---

Vote open for 72 hours:

[ ] +1 (set JDK17 min version for Maven 4.x)
[ ] +0
[ ] -1 (please include reasoning)

---

- Ben

[1*]: https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html

-
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

Re: [VOTE] Require Java 17 for Maven 4

[Jesper Udby]

+1

On 28/02/2024 08.30, Benjamin Marwell wrote:

Hi Maven Devs/Users/Committers and PMC members!

After several discussions on the mailing lists, I would like to
start a vote in favour of setting the minimal Java bytecode target
of Maven-Core 4 to 17 and hence require Java 17 for Maven 4.

This is a procedural majority vote [1*]:
You can also vote with fractions and negative votes are not vetoes.

Please also notice:
* Maven 3 will stay at Java 8 no matter what.
* We may raise Maven 4 to JDK 21 later if we feel like it (depending
on the release date).
   This is not part of this vote.
* The linked PR is not part of this vote (this is not a code vote).
   But you may take a look at it to understand the intended change.

PR: https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/1430

Maven-Parent will not be raised with this vote, the other PR is not
part of this vote.

Please refrain from starting discussions in this thread, but do
include a reasoning on downvotes and feel free to start a new
discussion on the mailing list, or comment on the existing ones.

---

Vote open for 72 hours:

[ ] +1 (set JDK17 min version for Maven 4.x)
[ ] +0
[ ] -1 (please include reasoning)

---

- Ben

[1*]: https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html

-
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

Re: [VOTE] Require Java 17 for Maven 4

[Kemal Soysal]

+1 (set JDK17 min version for Maven 4.x)