Re: [tycho-dev] Tycho 3.0 release

[Christoph Läubrich <laeubi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I really think we should only update to java 17 if there are 
dependencies in Tycho requiring it.

Requiring build systems to update their java version often brings some 
rumor and I currently do not see we can take advantage of any Java 17 
feature in tycho that would justify that given that people can always 
run Tycho with Java 17, 18, ... whatever they like already.

Am 07.01.22 um 11:34 schrieb Aleksandar Kurtakov:
> On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 12:24 PM Christoph Läubrich 
> <laeubi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:laeubi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
>     I would add say the following should considered breaking:
>
>     - changing the java version to run the build
>     - requiring a new minimum maven version (e.g. once we require maven 4)
>     - requiring to change their pom.xml in a non trivial way (e.g. beside
>     changing some configuration value in an existing mojo)
>
>
> I agree with this view. And I would like to see Tycho 3.0 requiring Java 
> 17 at runtime .
> So I repeat my proposal - work on 3.0 branch for any such change now if 
> needed although some of the deletions (e.g. pack200) can happen easily 
> once 3.0 branch is merged in master. Which should happen after Tycho 2.x 
> release based 2022-03, I can't say right now what fixes (if any!) will 
> land in p2/ecj but I expect at least some PGP related changes and 
> Probably Java-18 target support (but not producing Java 18 bytecode) 
> being added by that time. These could happen to be critical for projects 
> willing to go more the PGP way and/or just being able to build running 
> Java 18 thus I consider them important for regular releases.
>
>
>     I think everything listed under milestone 3.0 is a breaking change,
>     maybe the fixSWT could be considered as non breaking) one.
>
>     Am 07.01.22 um 11:18 schrieb Mickael Istria:
>      >
>      >
>      > On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 11:16 AM Christoph Läubrich
>      > <laeubi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:laeubi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>     <mailto:laeubi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:laeubi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>> wrote:
>      >
>      >     I can't remember the original bug that complained about
>     missing support
>      >     for mixed-reactors but it must be > 4 years now, people can
>     wait some
>      >     more for an official release (or help getting things done
>     faster ...)
>      >     and using snapshots as well ;-)
>      >
>      >
>      > Maybe, but for PGP, the need is more immediate.
>      >
>      >     As long as the API == pom.xml
>      >
>      >
>      > I'm fine with having it the base for the definition of "breaking"
>     and
>      > triggering a new major version.
>      > So we'd just need to bump major iff people need to tweak their
>     consumer
>      > pom.xml files for their build to complete? If so, is any of the
>     changes
>      > listed really requiring consumers to change their pom?
>      >
>      > _______________________________________________
>      > tycho-dev mailing list
>      > tycho-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:tycho-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>      > To unsubscribe from this list, visit
>     https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tycho-dev
>     <https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tycho-dev>
>     _______________________________________________
>     tycho-dev mailing list
>     tycho-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:tycho-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>     To unsubscribe from this list, visit
>     https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tycho-dev
>     <https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tycho-dev>
>
>
>
> --
> Aleksandar Kurtakov
> Red Hat Eclipse Team
>
> _______________________________________________
> tycho-dev mailing list
> tycho-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tycho-dev