It has been mentioned before, but just to add, since the bytecode
level is IMHO the smallest problem:
Jorge Solórzano wrote on 25. Feb 2024 00:41 (GMT +01:00):
> you can use JDK 17 to produce Java 8 bytecode using Java 8
> features, that is the distinction I made between runtime and build time,
>
On Sat, Feb 24, 2024, 17:24 Hunter C Payne
wrote:
> Is a JDK 17 capable of building JDK 8 jars from JDK 17 source?
No, it doesn't, you can use JDK 17 to produce Java 8 bytecode using Java 8
features, that is the distinction I made between runtime and build time,
but it looks it's still not
Is a JDK 17 capable of building JDK 8 jars from JDK 17 source? If so, what
are we discussing/arguing/debating about? Seems to me that that configuration
gets you everything you want without forcing Maven 4 to not work with JVM/JRE 8.
Hunter
On Saturday, February 24, 2024 at 03:09:07 PM
On Sat, Feb 24, 2024, 16:55 Tamás Cservenák wrote:
> Jorge,
>
> Allow me one question: why would we need 3.10 for this? Could not we set
> same thing for existing 3.9.x?
>
Yes, but 3.10 can be used to better signal that is an LTS since the
beginning and will only contain critical bug fixes,
Hello,
thanks Jorge I fully support your summary.
want to bring an additional points in support for newer runtime Java: Because
Maven alone isn’t the complete ecosystem and many other tools have higher
requirements already. Fr example both Jenkins (maven-style jobs) as well as
SonarQube
Jorge,
Allow me one question: why would we need 3.10 for this? Could not we set
same thing for existing 3.9.x?
T
On Sat, Feb 24, 2024, 23:43 Jorge Solórzano wrote:
> Hi Maven Developers,
>
> A lot has been told already from both sides, but please, please, let's
> focus on how to improve
Hi Maven Developers,
A lot has been told already from both sides, but please, please, let's
focus on how to improve the current status and define how and what Java
version will be required for Maven, not on trivial discussions about using
var or virtual threads.
Most developers would love to use
+1
sob., 24 lut 2024, 14:50 użytkownik Slawomir Jaranowski <
s.jaranow...@gmail.com> napisał:
> +1
>
> czw., 22 lut 2024 o 17:29 Tamás Cservenák
> napisał(a):
>
> > Howdy,
> >
> > Note: This is a seventh (alpha-4 was scrubbed) preview release of
> Resolver
> > 2.0.0, that would allow any
Thanks. This is helpful.
On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 1:44 PM Slawomir Jaranowski
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm going to release at the end of next week:
>
> 1. maven-assembly-plugin
>
> issues for next release:
>
+1
czw., 22 lut 2024 o 17:29 Tamás Cservenák napisał(a):
> Howdy,
>
> Note: This is a seventh (alpha-4 was scrubbed) preview release of Resolver
> 2.0.0, that would allow any downstream consumers to try it out and adapt.
> The supplier is aligned with Maven 4.0.0-alpha-12.
>
> For configuration
Hi,
I'm going to release at the end of next week:
1. maven-assembly-plugin
issues for next release:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%2012317220%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%2012353243%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC%2C%20key%20ASC
open issues:
11 matches
Mail list logo
