[xwiki-devs] [VOTE] Move to maven 3 as the minimum supported version instead of 2.2.1
I don't see any reason that would force us to support 2.2.x (if you can run 2.2 there is no reason you can't run 3.0, it's not like 3.0 was working on minimum Java 6 or something) and that would improve our ci build. Plus I pref having a build detified working on 3.0 than 2.2 and I don't want to build everything twice with both maven versions on our ci build just for that. WDYT ? -- Thomas Mortagne
Hi, On Mar 25, 2011, at 8:57 AM, Thomas Mortagne wrote:
I don't see any reason that would force us to support 2.2.x (if you can run 2.2 there is no reason you can't run 3.0, it's not like 3.0 was working on minimum Java 6 or something) and that would improve our ci build.
Plus I pref having a build detified working on 3.0 than 2.2 and I don't want to build everything twice with both maven versions on our ci build just for that.
WDYT ?
+1 Thanks -Vincent
+1 Thanks, Marius On 03/25/2011 09:57 AM, Thomas Mortagne wrote:
I don't see any reason that would force us to support 2.2.x (if you can run 2.2 there is no reason you can't run 3.0, it's not like 3.0 was working on minimum Java 6 or something) and that would improve our ci build.
Plus I pref having a build detified working on 3.0 than 2.2 and I don't want to build everything twice with both maven versions on our ci build just for that.
WDYT ?
Honestly, I have a hard time to keep up with the maven versions... I was somewhat more active at maven 1 and now maven 3 would be imposed me... My +0. paul Le 25 mars 2011 à 08:57, Thomas Mortagne a écrit :
I don't see any reason that would force us to support 2.2.x (if you can run 2.2 there is no reason you can't run 3.0, it's not like 3.0 was working on minimum Java 6 or something) and that would improve our ci build.
Plus I pref having a build detified working on 3.0 than 2.2 and I don't want to build everything twice with both maven versions on our ci build just for that.
WDYT ?
-- Thomas Mortagne _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
Hi Paul, On Mar 25, 2011, at 10:23 AM, Paul Libbrecht wrote:
Honestly, I have a hard time to keep up with the maven versions... I was somewhat more active at maven 1 and now maven 3 would be imposed me...
Well this is only if you need to build xwiki from sources and honestly installing maven is so easy (takes exactly 1 minute last time I timed it!) that I can't see this as a real blocker :) Note that maven3 is much better than the 2 and a lot faster so you'll benefit ;) Thanks for your feedback though. -Vincent
My +0.
paul
Le 25 mars 2011 à 08:57, Thomas Mortagne a écrit :
I don't see any reason that would force us to support 2.2.x (if you can run 2.2 there is no reason you can't run 3.0, it's not like 3.0 was working on minimum Java 6 or something) and that would improve our ci build.
Plus I pref having a build detified working on 3.0 than 2.2 and I don't want to build everything twice with both maven versions on our ci build just for that.
WDYT ?
-- Thomas Mortagne
Le 25 mars 2011 à 10:39, Vincent Massol a écrit :
Honestly, I have a hard time to keep up with the maven versions... I was somewhat more active at maven 1 and now maven 3 would be imposed me...
Well this is only if you need to build xwiki from sources and honestly installing maven is so easy (takes exactly 1 minute last time I timed it!) that I can't see this as a real blocker :)
Hence the +0. Was it Curriki, I had bragged.
Note that maven3 is much better than the 2 and a lot faster so you'll benefit ;) Thanks for your feedback though.
I feel there's a use in staying at classics such as older maven or older ant. Everyone knows them and you don't have to relearn. But I am sure Thomas had arguments in favor of Maven3... he did not mention them. paul
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:50, Paul Libbrecht <[email protected]> wrote:
Le 25 mars 2011 à 10:39, Vincent Massol a écrit :
Honestly, I have a hard time to keep up with the maven versions... I was somewhat more active at maven 1 and now maven 3 would be imposed me...
Well this is only if you need to build xwiki from sources and honestly installing maven is so easy (takes exactly 1 minute last time I timed it!) that I can't see this as a real blocker :)
Hence the +0. Was it Curriki, I had bragged.
Note that maven3 is much better than the 2 and a lot faster so you'll benefit ;) Thanks for your feedback though.
I feel there's a use in staying at classics such as older maven or older ant. Everyone knows them and you don't have to relearn.
But I am sure Thomas had arguments in favor of Maven3... he did not mention them.
As i said there is first: "Plus I prefer having a build certified working on 3.0 than 2.2 and I don't want to build everything twice with both maven versions on our ci build just for that." (with some corrections ;)) Also same argument as Vincent: maven 3 has better performance and is the last one and i don't see why we would use an older one
paul _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
-- Thomas Mortagne
On 03/25/2011 10:50 AM, Paul Libbrecht wrote:
Le 25 mars 2011 à 10:39, Vincent Massol a écrit :
Honestly, I have a hard time to keep up with the maven versions... I was somewhat more active at maven 1 and now maven 3 would be imposed me...
Well this is only if you need to build xwiki from sources and honestly installing maven is so easy (takes exactly 1 minute last time I timed it!) that I can't see this as a real blocker :)
Hence the +0. Was it Curriki, I had bragged.
Note that maven3 is much better than the 2 and a lot faster so you'll benefit ;) Thanks for your feedback though.
I feel there's a use in staying at classics such as older maven or older ant. Everyone knows them and you don't have to relearn.
There's not much to learn, unlike M1->M2, which was a bit groundbreaking, M2->M3 is much more backwards compatible. Most of the changes are in the internals, not in the usage. From the user's perspective, there are a few more command line parameters that can be used to optimize the build process. The POM structure is unchanged, most plugins are still there and work the same way, the command line syntax is the same.
But I am sure Thomas had arguments in favor of Maven3... he did not mention them.
-- Sergiu Dumitriu http://purl.org/net/sergiu/
participants (5)
-
Marius Dumitru Florea -
Paul Libbrecht -
Sergiu Dumitriu -
Thomas Mortagne -
Vincent Massol