you call a human looking at logs "parsing"? is it ideal? no but making users life harder is not the right answer while working on more ambitious options when this simple parameter can help soft transitioning
notice: I need the more ambitious options for future other needs, where I'll probably need parsing or equivalent not-human oriented approach pointers welcome On 2026/09/08 10:16:51 Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote: > Logging != API. The reason people are (or one person is?) having > trouble with the logs not being there is that they're using logs for > something they were never intended for. Writing code that depends on > log messages is brittle and not something we want to support and > commit to. > > I've looked at the specific issues involved here and parsing the logs > is not what they should be doing in the first place. There are other > and better ways to accomplish what they want. > > -10 > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2026 at 6:39 AM Hervé Boutemy <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I fully agree: it's a matter of taste to have that information at INFO > > level or not > > > > for people who have strong taste against INFO, I'm ok with default value > > hiding from INFO > > > > PR looks reasonable to get that feature (given how DEBUG log is > > definitively unusable) for people who prefer INFO > > > > Regards, > > > > Hervé > > > > On 2026/09/04 11:59:34 Cheng Pan wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > MSHADE-479 (shipped in 3.6.1, PR [1]) demoted several shade mojo info > > > logs to debug, notably: > > > > > > - Including <artifact> in the shaded jar. > > > - Excluding <artifact> from the shaded jar. > > > - Skipping pom dependency <artifact> in the shaded jar. > > > > > > This output had been at info level for ~15 years and is how users audit > > > what actually goes into the artifact they publish. Shading is not > > > transparent: the final content is decided by artifactSet/filter > > > evaluation, and the include/exclude list is the only direct record of > > > that decision. > > > > > > Since 3.6.1 the only way to see it is mvn -X, which drowns five relevant > > > lines in thousands of debug lines from Maven core and every other plugin. > > > Maven offers no per-plugin log level on the command line. > > > > > > Downstream impact so far: > > > > > > - Apache Spark explicitly dropped maven-shade-plugin from a bulk > > > plugin-upgrade PR to stay on 3.6.0 [2][3], and pins the ASM version in > > > its pom to keep Java 25 support on the old plugin version [4]. > > > - Apache Kyuubi likewise stays on an older plugin version with an ASM 9.8 > > > pin, carrying a TODO to remove it once an upstream release makes that > > > unnecessary [5]. > > > - Apache Flink upgraded to 3.6.1 and their license compliance tooling > > > broke: the LicenseChecker parses the "Including ..." lines to validate > > > NOTICE files. They restored the output by forcing the plugin's logger > > > to debug level in CI, stating "I could not find any other way to print > > > these lines" [6], backported it [7], and then needed a follow-up to clean > > > up the debug-log noise this introduced [8]. > > > > > > - User demand: issue [9] and multiple comments on PR [1]. > > > > > > Proposal: add a boolean "verbose" parameter (property shade.verbose, > > > default false) that logs these messages at info level when enabled. > > > Default off, so the quiet-build behavior introduced by MSHADE-479 is > > > unchanged. Precedent exists in maven-dependency-plugin (verbose on > > > tree/analyze, silent on other goals), and users already know the > > > <verbose> convention from compiler and javadoc plugins. > > > > > > A PR implementing this is available [10]. It was closed as "unnecessary > > > complexity". I believe a default-off opt-in that unblocks multiple > > > downstream ASF projects deserves broader input, hence this thread. > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/maven-shade-plugin/pull/233 > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/52622#issuecomment-3407500888 > > > [3] https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/52622#issuecomment-3407616785 > > > [4] https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/master/pom.xml#L3087-L3103 > > > [5] https://github.com/apache/kyuubi/blob/master/pom.xml#L1596-L1615 > > > [6] https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/27261 > > > [7] https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/27266 > > > [8] https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/27722 > > > [9] https://github.com/apache/maven-shade-plugin/issues/756 > > > [10] https://github.com/apache/maven-shade-plugin/pull/849 > > > > > > Please share your thoughts. If the feedback is positive I will follow up > > > with a [VOTE] thread or simply reopen the PR, whichever the community > > > prefers. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Cheng Pan > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > -- > Elliotte Rusty Harold > [email protected] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
