On Wed, Jun 7, 2023 at 8:26 PM Allen Wittenauer <a...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 7, 2023, at 11:46 AM, Karl Heinz Marbaise <khmarba...@gmx.de> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > On 07.06.23 19:23, Allen Wittenauer wrote: > >> > >> > >>> On Jun 5, 2023, at 3:28 PM, Slawomir Jaranowski <s.jaranow...@gmail.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> I want to introduce properties to define versions of plugins. > >>> I have prepared PR [1] and we have a discussion about properties schema > >>> for > >>> such purposes. > >>> > >>> Because AFS Maven parent is used by other ASF projects, and such changes > >>> can be difficult to change in the next release, I want to know other > >>> opinions. > >> > >> -1 > >> > >> Some projects are stuck on old versions of the pom because newer ones > >> introduce plugins with bugs. e.g., MASSEMBLY-942 stopped some projects on > >> v21 for a very long time. > > > > The issue is related to a non Apache API (build-api related to Eclipse) > > abandoned (12 years old+) ... > > And why does a Eclipse related bugs stops you to use that in builds? > > > > Which plugins are we talking exactly? Which kind of bugs have occurred? > > Woops, I meant MASSEMBLY-941, which left a trail of dead in its wake, > all linked to in the ticket. > > I know I hit a bug in the latest maven pom where it (i’m guessing > assembly again) tries to resolve relative symlinks and makes them absolute > which then in turn blows up with the latest pom. I don’t have time to track > it down, so I’ll likely just stick with an ancient version of the Apache pom. > I just don’t have time to debug this stuff. Even though we only release this > project maybe twice a year, every year it is “can we udpate apache pom? > nope.” so at least I know I’ll likely just stop even attempting to do it. > >
I think your concern about the risks of updating plugin versions is valid, but I don't think it has anything to do with how those plugin versions are expressed in the parent POM. If anything, using properties to express these versions would make it easier for you to update the parent POM, but hold back specific plugins when those versions cause problems for you. You could also continue doing what you're doing now and not update the parent POM. That's perfectly valid. I just wonder, if you're going to do that, why care about how versions are expressed as properties in newer versions of the parent POM, enough to offer a -1 at the idea, if you're not even interested in using those newer versions of the parent POM?
