-
1. Re: Maven Version Resolution Differences 2.0.8 / 2.0.9
From the Maven Release Notes:
"http://maven.apache.org/release-notes.html" wrote:
MNG-3220 - There is now a new scope for importing managed dependencies. See here{1} and here{2} for details. Please note that the use of this scope will break backwards compatibility with older Maven versions. If you use this, you should use the maven-enforcer-plugin to require a minimum maven version of 2.0.9
Still interpreting what this means.
S,
ALR
References:
{1} - http://docs.codehaus.org/display/MAVEN/Importing+Managed+Dependencies
{2} - http://maven.apache.org/guides/introduction/introduction-to-dependency-mechanism.html#Importing_Dependencies -
2. Re: Maven Version Resolution Differences 2.0.8 / 2.0.9
"ALRubinger" wrote:
From the Maven Release Notes:"http://maven.apache.org/release-notes.html" wrote:
MNG-3220 - There is now a new scope for importing managed dependencies. See here{1} and here{2} for details. Please note that the use of this scope will break backwards compatibility with older Maven versions. If you use this, you should use the maven-enforcer-plugin to require a minimum maven version of 2.0.9
Still interpreting what this means.
S,
ALR
References:
{1} - http://docs.codehaus.org/display/MAVEN/Importing+Managed+Dependencies
{2} - http://maven.apache.org/guides/introduction/introduction-to-dependency-mechanism.html#Importing_Dependencies
As far as I understand it, the import scope imports just dependencyManagement information (versions, excludes, etc) from another project, and not the dependencies themselves.
Are you using the import scope in ejb3? I'm not sure how maven 2.0.8 would handle import scope, either an error or unpredictable behaviour I would guess. -
3. Re: Maven Version Resolution Differences 2.0.8 / 2.0.9
"pgier" wrote:
Are you using the import scope in ejb3? I'm not sure how maven 2.0.8 would handle import scope, either an error or unpredictable behaviour I would guess.
Yeah, we're not using "import" scope in EJB3.
So I'm still at a loss as to what's up with this issue.
I suppose in the meantime we should introduce a fail-fast by requiring Maven 2.0.9 in the Enforcer Configuration for EJB3 Core.
S,
ALR -
4. Re: Maven Version Resolution Differences 2.0.8 / 2.0.9
"ALRubinger" wrote:
"pgier" wrote:
Are you using the import scope in ejb3? I'm not sure how maven 2.0.8 would handle import scope, either an error or unpredictable behaviour I would guess.
Yeah, we're not using "import" scope in EJB3.
So I'm still at a loss as to what's up with this issue.
I suppose in the meantime we should introduce a fail-fast by requiring Maven 2.0.9 in the Enforcer Configuration for EJB3 Core.
S,
ALR
Does the tree work ok without the "includes" parameter? That's really weird behaviour and looks like a bug. Something in the dependency resolution must have changed in 2.0.9 that messed up the dependency plugin. -
5. Re: Maven Version Resolution Differences 2.0.8 / 2.0.9
"pgier" wrote:
Does the tree work ok without the "includes" parameter? That's really weird behaviour and looks like a bug. Something in the dependency resolution must have changed in 2.0.9 that messed up the dependency plugin.
You mean does "dependency:tree" work without "includes"? Sure.
I don't think I've found enough Context to provide Maven with a useful bug report. Either way, this isn't the behaviour (intended or bug) that I'd expect from a point release.
S,
ALR -
6. Re: Maven Version Resolution Differences 2.0.8 / 2.0.9
Here's my Discussion w/ #maven:
"#maven" wrote:
(03:04:49 PM) ALR: Hi, #Maven. I've found a difference in dependency resolution between 2.0.8 and 2.0.9, and was hoping someone could help me nail down an isolated use case to submit as a bug report.
(03:05:49 PM) Brian: ALR: what's the difference?
(03:06:04 PM) ALR: Brian: Preparing a Pastebin
(03:06:08 PM) Brian: the only major change i can think of is that the order in the pom is preserved now making it deterministic
(03:06:59 PM) ALR: Brian: http://pastebin.com/d7e7a4297
(03:07:02 PM) Brian: we worked pretty hard to ensure there were no regressions between .8 and .9 so my money's on that
(03:07:56 PM) Brian: i don't understand what the issue is based on the paste
(03:07:58 PM) ALR: Brian: In that code snippit are two sections, the first is using 2.0.8, the second is 2.0.9.
(03:08:32 PM) ALR: Brian: In 2.0.8 "org.jboss.microcontainer:jboss-container" is found as a dependency, in 2.0.9 it is not.
(03:08:47 PM) ALR: Brian: Same machine.
(03:09:21 PM) Brian: ALR do you want it to be found?
(03:09:22 PM) ALR: Brian: And as help:describe shows, same version of the dependency plugin.
(03:09:33 PM) ALR: Brian: No, I don't want it to be found.
(03:09:55 PM) Brian: ok, can you paste the full tree output from both? (no -Dincludes)
(03:10:05 PM) ALR: Brian: Sure, one moment.
(03:12:18 PM) ALR: Brian: 2.0.8, then 2.0.9, separated by whitespace: http://pastebin.com/d778daed2
(03:15:36 PM) Brian: ALR, i'm confused. You said you don't want jboss-container to be found and that it's not found in 2.0.9...what's the problem?
(03:15:51 PM) ALR: Brian: That is *is* found in 2.0.8.
(03:16:21 PM) ALR: Brian: What I want should be irrelevant; my concern is that the build is dependent upon the version of Maven being used.
(03:17:08 PM) ALR: Brian: So if I'm using 2.0.9, and someone else on my project is still on 2.0.8, we have incompatible build results.
(03:17:53 PM) Brian: ALR: i'm sure it's the ordering, if we find the right dependency and change the order in the pom it will be consistent
(03:18:37 PM) Brian: in <2.0.8 the dependency ordering was dependent on the natural hashset order, which meant it could change if you moved jdks. In 2.0.9+, it's a linkedhashset and the order in the pom is preserved
(03:19:09 PM) ALR: Brian: I see. You understand why this confuses me for a point release? :)
(03:19:43 PM) ALR: Brian: This makes 2.0.9 not backward-compatible with 2.0.8.
(03:20:12 PM) ALR: Brian: Unless you consider 2.0.8 handling a bug ;)
(03:20:38 PM) Brian: ALR it was a tough call but it was causing far more issues as it was
(03:20:54 PM) Brian: most of the time it's not an issue, but in edge cases like this it shows up
(03:21:28 PM) ALR: Brian: Thanks very much again for your help. I'll take a look at the ordering of the transitives.
(03:21:39 PM) Brian: i'm still comparing the trees here
(03:21:45 PM) ALR: Brian: Ah, cool
(03:24:09 PM) Brian: you don't have any exclusions?
(03:24:28 PM) Brian: i can see in one system, the container comes from the jboss-as-jmx dependency but not in the other
(03:24:34 PM) ALR: Brian: I'm sure we do :)
(03:26:18 PM) ALR: Brian: Yes, that's very odd..
(03:26:34 PM) ALR: Brian: Same version of jboss-as-jmx at that.
(03:26:38 PM) Brian: yeah
(03:26:47 PM) Brian: does that have an exclusion in it?
(03:27:55 PM) Brian: jdcasey: ping
(03:28:05 PM) jdcasey: ?
(03:28:19 PM) ALR: Brian: No. http://pastebin.com/d72663242
(03:28:42 PM) Brian: i'm looking at this output from the jboss build and i think the issue is because we made the order deterministic in 2.0.9 but i haven't put my finger on it yet
(03:29:09 PM) Brian: jdcasey, here's the output: http://pastebin.com/d778daed2 2.0.8 on top, 2.0.9 on bottom.
(03:29:21 PM) Brian: 2.0.8 has the jboss-container artifact, 2.0.9 doesn't
(03:30:38 PM) Brian: jdcasey, it's coming from the jboss-as-jmx dependency but both maven versions have selected the same version of that dependency yet one is missing the container
(03:31:05 PM) jdcasey: Brian: you may need to run with -X and capture the collection output in the debug logs to see what's happening there...it's possible an exclusion or something is getting triggered that wasn't before
(03:31:24 PM) Brian: that's kinda what i was thinking
(03:32:04 PM) ALR: Brian, jdcasey: I don't see the exclusion: http://pastebin.com/d72663242
(03:32:33 PM) jdcasey: Brian: I didn't think we'd made provided-scope dependencies transitive yet?
(03:32:41 PM) jdcasey: that provided scope maybe the key
(03:33:09 PM) jdcasey: in any case, there's not enough information in that output to tell
(03:33:17 PM) jdcasey: you need the full -X output for each, IMO
(03:33:23 PM) jdcasey: and it'll be fun to pick out, too
(03:33:26 PM) jdcasey: count on that
(03:34:29 PM) ALR: Brian, jdcasey: k
(03:42:52 PM) ALR: Brian, jdcasey: 2.0.8 http://pastebin.com/d20c5d35d
(03:43:58 PM) ALR: Brian, jdcasey: 2.0.9 http://pastebin.com/d3143b227
S,
ALR