Skip to content

fix: Some since javadoc tags were off; fixed#1968

Merged
cstamas merged 1 commit into
apache:masterfrom
cstamas:fix-since
Jul 16, 2026
Merged

fix: Some since javadoc tags were off; fixed#1968
cstamas merged 1 commit into
apache:masterfrom
cstamas:fix-since

Conversation

@cstamas

@cstamas cstamas commented Jul 16, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Fix javadoc since tags.

@cstamas cstamas requested a review from kwin July 16, 2026 16:12
@cstamas cstamas self-assigned this Jul 16, 2026
@cstamas cstamas marked this pull request as ready for review July 16, 2026 16:13
@cstamas cstamas added the documentation Improvements or additions to documentation label Jul 16, 2026
@cstamas cstamas added this to the 2.0.21 milestone Jul 16, 2026

@kwin kwin left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I would very much favor to make the next version a minor upgrade (to indicate new features), i.e. 2.1.0

@gnodet gnodet left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Initial review — javadoc @since tag corrections

Changes reviewed:

  • 8 occurrences of @since NEXT@since 2.0.21 across 6 files (transport property APIs from recent PRs #1762, #1949, #1965)
  • 1 historical correction: ManagedScopeDeriver @since 4.0.0@since 2.0.0-alpha-9 (matches the MRESOLVER-512 introduction in the 2.0.0-alpha-9 release)

Observations:

  • Clean sweep — verified no remaining @since NEXT placeholders in the codebase after this PR
  • ManagedScopeDeriver correction is accurate — the class was introduced in commit 39452f7 (MRESOLVER-512), which shipped in 2.0.0-alpha-9
  • CI failure on ubuntu/jdk-25 appears unrelated (javadoc-only change, master passes)

The version number discussion (2.0.21 vs 2.1.0) is already being discussed between maintainers — no additional input from us on that topic.

Verdict: ✅ The javadoc changes are well-scoped and the @since tag corrections are accurate. Ready to merge once the version number is settled.


Reviewed with AI on behalf of @gnodet. This review was generated by an AI agent and may contain inaccuracies; please verify all suggestions before applying.

gnodet added a commit to gnodet/maven-resolver that referenced this pull request Jul 16, 2026
gnodet added a commit to gnodet/maven-resolver that referenced this pull request Jul 16, 2026
@cstamas

cstamas commented Jul 16, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

I would very much favor to make the next version a minor upgrade (to indicate new features), i.e. 2.1.0

Resolver (nor Maven project) was not semver, and IMO if we start right now (out of the blue) to follow semver, that could be misleading to many users. Not to mention, how we already "scare" our users with Resolver 1 vs Resolver 2 APIs, and now we'd throw on them Resolver 2.1... while I agree with assessment, I would not do 2.1.0 now. The major version milestones were once recorded on this page https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/spaces/MAVEN/pages/181305684/Maven+Ecosystem+Cleanup#MavenEcosystemCleanup-ResolverandMaven but of course are not in stone, but changing versioning to semver would require broader discussion. Right now, we want GA versions of Maven 3 and 4 using same Resolver 2, with all the promises with backward compatibility we gave.

gnodet added a commit to gnodet/maven-resolver that referenced this pull request Jul 16, 2026
@cstamas cstamas merged commit e3dc791 into apache:master Jul 16, 2026
19 of 20 checks passed
@cstamas cstamas deleted the fix-since branch July 16, 2026 17:18
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

documentation Improvements or additions to documentation

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants