On 2026/03/01 01:24:45 Olivier Lamy wrote: > On Sun, 1 Mar 2026 at 09:12, Michael Osipov <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 2026/02/04 01:48:18 Olivier Lamy wrote: > > > Hi there, > > > Finally back after a few months of work (Thanks a lot to Sebastian > > > Tiemann for the huge help on this topic!), the branch is ready. > > > There is still a weird Windows test failure. > > > I wish we could be Java 9+ to be able to use ProcessHandle and really > > > simplify the class PpidChecker, which mixes parsing of ps on unix and > > > wmic for Windows. > > > This wmic looks to be broken on modern Windows see [1]. > > > But I have a very very limited knowledge of this operating system, so > > > relying on ProcessHandle would be much simpler (sorry the off-topic > > > this could of another thread but I like to express my frustration via > > > some ranting :) ) > > > > > > So what I would like to do now as a plan to move forward: > > > - make release of master (3.5.5) > > > - having a 3.5.x branch > > > - merge the giant PR (master will be 3.6.x) having something 4.0.x > > > could be better when we will be using Maven 4.x api. > > > - cut a release 3.6.0.M1 could be alpha-1, beta-1 (or even broken-1 > > > as I expect a significant amount of issues even if we have a very > > > large collection of ITs) > > > - then fixing the bugs :) for another release. (looping here) > > > > > > WDYT? > > > > As someone who has worked on Surefire for quite some time I do not fully > > understand your motivation. I do understand that ProcessHandle will make > > life easier -- true, but the PpidHandler is just fraction of Surefire there > > is so much more that is not tied to the Maven version at all. The plugin is > > just the glue to make it run within Maven. To my understanding, 90% is > > agnostic and maintaining two branches 4.x and 3.x for just the tip of the > > iceberg seems too much effort. > > > > Can you explain what would actually be an improvement to Surefire -- next > > to ProcessHandle -- when Maven 4 related changes are done? > > > > The main motivation for the branches isn't related to Maven 4 or the > ProcessHandle change (which is a minor issue in the grand scheme of > things). > The real driver is the significant simplification of the code through > the removal of obsolete providers. > These can be replaced by a single one, which greatly streamlines the > codebase (see PR[1] and the many discussions in this thread; there’s > been broad agreement across the community on this direction; I don't > think we need to reopen this discussion). > The plan I have in mind, and I expect this to stay for quite a while: > - maven-3.5.x (stable branch from last 3.5.5) > - master (with the simplification PR merged), which will have 3.6.x > versioning. > > In the long term (but only until the master branch stabilises), > something similar to what we do for other "core" plugins (compiler, > resources, clean, etc.) could be implemented. Like those plugins, the > master branch could support Maven 4 APIs, allowing for a maven-3.x > branch. > But that’s well down the track. I probably shouldn’t have mentioned it > earlier, as I might’ve just added a bit of confusion and noise :) > > Regarding PpidHandler, it's unrelated to the branches strategy; I'm > unsure where the confusion is. As you mentioned, I agree it's a very > small part of Surefire, and it’s not even enabled by default, so it's > probably not really a factor in this discussion. > > Hopefully, that clears things up and answers your question. Happy to > clarify further if needed.
Thank you for taking taking the time to elaborate. Now I fully understand your intentions and support them. Michael --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
