://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG/fixforversion/20821
--
View this message in context:
http://maven.40175.n5.nabble.com/move-maven-core-to-java-7-tp5827988p582
85
22.html Sent from the Maven Developers mailing list archive at
Nabble.com
/browse/MNG/fixforversion/20821
--
View this message in context:
http://maven.40175.n5.nabble.com/move-maven-core-to-java-7-tp5827988p582
85
22.html Sent from the Maven Developers mailing list archive at
Nabble.com
2015-03-08 16:07 GMT+01:00 Tibor Digana tibordig...@apache.org:
As you said, the SPI did not work well in multimodule project.
You tested SPI in Maven, so you know better than me :)
The problem is really only once the SPI project is in the same reactor as
is using it. Even then there were
.
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG/fixforversion/20821
--
View this message in context:
http://maven.40175.n5.nabble.com/move-maven-core-to-java-7-tp5827988p582
85
22.html Sent from the Maven Developers mailing list archive at
Nabble.com
--
View this message in context:
http://maven.40175.n5.nabble.com/move-maven-core-to-java-7-tp5827988p582
85
22.html Sent from the Maven Developers mailing list archive at
Nabble.com.
-
To unsubscribe, e
.40175.n5.nabble.com/move-maven-core-to-java-7-tp5827988p582
85
22.html Sent from the Maven Developers mailing list archive at
Nabble.com.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e
, I would suggest to jump to
3.3.0 with JDK 7.
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG/fixforversion/20821
--
View this message in context:
http://maven.40175.n5.nabble.com/move-maven-core-to-java-7-tp5827988p58285
22.html Sent from the Maven Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com
What's the rush?
Releases are cheap and easy, so I find the argument to upgrade now due to one
less release is somewhat lacking.
Sent from my iPad
On 9 Mar 2015, at 2:22 am, Dennis Lundberg denn...@apache.org wrote:
Hi Igor,
In my opinion the switch to Java 7 as a prerequisite is a
So let's say that Dennis and I have our concerns.
The discussion about versions seems more about marketing versions.
If the current added features are minor incremental worthy AND Java
Runtime change to version 7 is also minor incremental worthy, then so be
it.
I wouldn't call 3.3.0 a dead
nothing to fix in 3.2.6, I would suggest to jump to
3.3.0 with JDK 7.
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG/fixforversion/20821
--
View this message in context:
http://maven.40175.n5.nabble.com/move-maven-core-to-java-7-tp5827988p5828522.html
Sent from the Maven Developers mailing list archive
I have a biased data point to throw into the mix:
pleading
The Jenkins project would really like to ditch support for running on Java
6. When Maven releases a version that requires Java 7, and Olivier updates
the evil plugin to use the new Maven dependencies, then Jenkins can force
through
this message in context:
http://maven.40175.n5.nabble.com/move-maven-core-to-java-7-tp5827988p5828522.html
Sent from the Maven Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr
On 2015-03-08 9:35, Tibor Digana wrote:
@Igor
Would you introduce trully incremental compiler with JDT?
I guess the surefire would need the interface from core or compiler to be
notified about modified tests in order to execute only those.
Incremental test execution requires full impact
Java SE 7 Features and Enhancements
http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/jdk7-relnotes-418459.html
--
View this message in context:
http://maven.40175.n5.nabble.com/move-maven-core-to-java-7-tp5827988p5828456.html
Sent from the Maven Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com
to execute only those.
--
View this message in context:
http://maven.40175.n5.nabble.com/move-maven-core-to-java-7-tp5827988p5828450.html
Sent from the Maven Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev
this message in context:
http://maven.40175.n5.nabble.com/move-maven-core-to-java-7-tp5827988p5828456.html
Sent from the Maven Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
-maven-core-to-java-7-tp5827988p58285
22.html Sent from the Maven Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h
On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Hervé BOUTEMY herve.bout...@free.fr wrote:
There is nothing stoping you from releasing 3.3.0 on Java 6 now, and 3.4.0
on Java 7 in a few weeks.
what I don't like with this plan is that it is exactly what happened with
3.1.1 then 3.2.1: we never did any bugfix
Le dimanche 8 mars 2015 16:17:39 Dennis Lundberg a écrit :
On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Hervé BOUTEMY herve.bout...@free.fr wrote:
There is nothing stoping you from releasing 3.3.0 on Java 6 now, and
3.4.0
on Java 7 in a few weeks.
what I don't like with this plan is that it is
RunOrderCalculator
Does it make sense to you or should I give it up?
--
View this message in context:
http://maven.40175.n5.nabble.com/move-maven-core-to-java-7-tp5827988p5828468.html
Sent from the Maven Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com
-core-to-java-7-tp5827988p5828390.html
Sent from the Maven Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
-maven-core-to-java-7-tp5827988p5828468.html
Sent from the Maven Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
with the help of Annotation Processor.
@Component
public class CustomRunOrder implement RunOrderCalculator
Does it make sense to you or should I give it up?
--
View this message in context:
http://maven.40175.n5.nabble.com/move-maven-core-to-java-7-tp5827988p5828468.html
Sent from the Maven
Scopes:
@Scope
@Retention(RUNTIME)
public @interface ForkedScoped
@Scope
@Retention(RUNTIME)
public @interface InProcessScoped
--
View this message in context:
http://maven.40175.n5.nabble.com/move-maven-core-to-java-7-tp5827988p5828481.html
Sent from the Maven Developers mailing list archive
Hi Igor,
In my opinion the switch to Java 7 as a prerequisite is a non-risky
thing to do, even though I still argue that we should wait till the
next release to do it.
Making use of the new Java 7 features in the code is the risky bit.
That in my book warrants a minor release bump rather that a
Le vendredi 6 mars 2015 08:33:27 Anders Hammar a écrit :
What I'd like to stress here is that we're talking about Maven core, not
our plugins. We've had a separate discussion/thread for the plugins and for
those we've decided to go with a Java 6 requirement.
As plugins were mentioned in this
Le samedi 7 mars 2015 13:26:36 Hervé BOUTEMY a écrit :
Le samedi 7 mars 2015 13:06:26 Hervé BOUTEMY a écrit :
There is nothing stoping you from releasing 3.3.0 on Java 6 now, and
3.4.0
on Java 7 in a few weeks.
what I don't like with this plan is that it is exactly what happened
We changed version from 3.2.x to 3.3.x quite late in the release and
this was the reason I proposed change to java 7. It allows us continue
3.3.x improvement and use new language features.
Personally I believe changing compiler configuration to target java 7 is
very unlikely to introduce
Le samedi 7 mars 2015 08:45:37 Igor Fedorenko a écrit :
We changed version from 3.2.x to 3.3.x quite late in the release
yes, let's be fair :)
and
this was the reason I proposed change to java 7. It allows us continue
3.3.x improvement and use new language features.
Personally I believe
great: can you give us a pointer?
if we upgrade to Java 7, having these improvements would be more interesting
than waiting the next patch release
the idea of Java 7 upgrade came quite late on the release schedule, and IMHO
these updates are worth one more release testing
Regards,
Hervé
Le
I deliberately kept the change in github to give the discussion a little
time. Personally I dont really mind waiting, but I really believe we're
wasting far too much energy on legacy java versions. It's not as if java6
users dont have a working version. And they can pay people to backport
stuff
Hi Kristian,
Please note that I am not opposed to using Java 7 in the core. What I am
objecting to is the planning, or rather the lack of it.
We currently have core ready to be released on Java 6. Then just before it
is about to be released someone says, hey lets switch Java version as
well.
Le samedi 7 mars 2015 13:06:26 Hervé BOUTEMY a écrit :
There is nothing stoping you from releasing 3.3.0 on Java 6 now, and 3.4.0
on Java 7 in a few weeks.
what I don't like with this plan is that it is exactly what happened with
3.1.1 then 3.2.1:
and before 2.1.0 vs 2.2.0
and the only
There is nothing stoping you from releasing 3.3.0 on Java 6 now, and 3.4.0
on Java 7 in a few weeks.
what I don't like with this plan is that it is exactly what happened with
3.1.1 then 3.2.1: we never did any bugfix for 3.1.1, 3.1.1 was a dead branch
for start. 3.2.2 bugfixes could/should
+1
Le samedi 7 mars 2015 13:09:35 Kristian Rosenvold a écrit :
I deliberately kept the change in github to give the discussion a little
time. Personally I dont really mind waiting, but I really believe we're
wasting far too much energy on legacy java versions. It's not as if java6
users dont
/alanb/entry/sockets_direct_protocol
--
View this message in context:
http://maven.40175.n5.nabble.com/move-maven-core-to-java-7-tp5828386.html
Sent from the Maven Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
/sockets_direct_protocol
--
View this message in context:
http://maven.40175.n5.nabble.com/move-maven-core-to-java-7-tp5827988p5828390.html
Sent from the Maven Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev
in context:
http://maven.40175.n5.nabble.com/move-maven-core-to-java-7-tp5827988p5828398.html
Sent from the Maven Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
@Igor
How about Java SE 7 features?
If we change the compiler version, adapting compiler without introducing new
Java API features would not make any difference in 3.4.0.
Any thoughts?
--
View this message in context:
http://maven.40175.n5.nabble.com/move-maven-core-to-java-7-tp5827988p5828398
(RDMA) SDP AsynchronousSocketChannel
https://blogs.oracle.com/alanb/entry/sockets_direct_protocol
--
View this message in context:
http://maven.40175.n5.nabble.com/move-maven-core-to-java-7-tp5827988p5828390.html
Sent from the Maven Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com
Did I object something? :-)
--
Olivier
On 6 Mar 2015 21:19, Stephen Connolly stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com
wrote:
We are CTR not RTC
If you object to the change, veto the commit
On 6 March 2015 at 07:44, Olivier Lamy ol...@apache.org wrote:
+1
I just find the change/discussion a bit
IMO this Java version bump should be reflected in a minor Maven version
bump as opposed to a maintenance release.
Gary
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 12:09 AM, Anders Hammar and...@hammar.net wrote:
Ok, the consensus is to move forward to Java7. I updated the POM and
we're
in no rush so give it a
at the moment) commit
Regards,
Hervé
- Mail original -
De: Stephen Connolly stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com
À: Maven Developers List dev@maven.apache.org
Envoyé: Vendredi 6 Mars 2015 11:18:56
Objet: Re: move maven core to java 7?
We are CTR not RTC
If you object to the change, veto
Hi,
If we are going to release 3.3.0 very soon, like this week or the
next, there won't be any time to start using Java 7 features in the
3.3.0 release. Therefor I would prefer to go with Java 6 for 3.3.0 and
announce, in the 3.3.0 release notes, that the 3.3.x line is the last
line that will
I already have the full jdk7 port in a branch in github, so that assumption
does not hold :)
Kristian
2015-03-06 13:50 GMT+01:00 Dennis Lundberg denn...@apache.org:
Hi,
If we are going to release 3.3.0 very soon, like this week or the
next, there won't be any time to start using Java 7
We are CTR not RTC
If you object to the change, veto the commit
On 6 March 2015 at 07:44, Olivier Lamy ol...@apache.org wrote:
+1
I just find the change/discussion a bit too fast.
You should wait longer than ~10h as the world has more timezone.
IMHO waiting for the answer from various
+1
On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 8:16 AM, Igor Fedorenko i...@ifedorenko.com wrote:
This is chicken-and-egg situation. We won't use java 7 features unless
the code targets java 7.
Try-with-resources and multi-exception catch are the too features I'd
like to start using throughout the code. Although
Ok, the consensus is to move forward to Java7. I updated the POM and we're
in no rush so give it a whirl and we can think about releasing next week if
the world doesn't blow up.
Please create a JIRA ticket for this to make things clear in the release
notes.
/Anders
On Mar 5, 2015, at
+1 for the upgrade
On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 7:53 PM, Hervé BOUTEMY herve.bout...@free.fr wrote:
+1
(both for the move to java 7, Robert's concerns and Stephen justification)
another reason: the next Maven core minor version bump isn't expected
before a
while
let's use the 3.3.0 minor
On 2015-03-05 14:12, Kristian Rosenvold wrote:
Actually Files.walkFileTree is just about the only NIO 7 feature we're
not using. Anyone have any specific pointers/experience that actually
show this being faster than the current strategy ?
I ran some tests about a year ago on a large 200K
Hi,
On 3/5/15 2:16 PM, Igor Fedorenko wrote:
This is chicken-and-egg situation. We won't use java 7 features unless
the code targets java 7.
Try-with-resources and multi-exception catch are the too features I'd
like to start using throughout the code. Although not critical per se,
I think they
Hello there,
I would go for JDK7 as well, in April it will be EOLed anyway. I do
not understand why someone who is forced to use JDK6 or let alone JDK5
is allowed (or has) to use the newest versions of build tools BTW. IMO
it is stressful enough to support two JDKs (on different at least 3
OSes).
My preference is to always go for the lowest common denoninator, as it
gives the largest possible spread.
My 'grumbling' as Stephen put it [ :-) ], is more that I'd like people to
have an awareness that there are other platforms out there.
For example, the current IBM WAS 8.x stack defaults to
Ok, the consensus is to move forward to Java7. I updated the POM and we're in
no rush so give it a whirl and we can think about releasing next week if the
world doesn't blow up.
On Mar 5, 2015, at 2:32 PM, Mirko Friedenhagen mfriedenha...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello there,
I would go for JDK7
Op Thu, 05 Mar 2015 14:16:24 +0100 schreef Igor Fedorenko
i...@ifedorenko.com:
This is chicken-and-egg situation. We won't use java 7 features unless
the code targets java 7.
Try-with-resources and multi-exception catch are the too features I'd
like to start using throughout the code.
+1
On Mar 5, 2015, at 4:19 AM, Igor Fedorenko i...@ifedorenko.com wrote:
With maven core version change to 3.3.0 on master, any objections I
change compile source/target to java 7?
--
Regards,
Igor
-
To unsubscribe,
We never got a final official policy.
I believe the consensus was at least:
* all Java versions currently supported by Oracle and one back on a Major
version bump.
I think we should go with all Java versions currently supported by Oracle
on a Minor version bump... but there was some grumbling
Stephen, as the keeper of long discussions we've had about JDK versions what
did we actually decide a while back?
On Mar 5, 2015, at 7:43 AM, Stephen Connolly stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com
wrote:
+1
On 5 March 2015 at 12:19, Igor Fedorenko i...@ifedorenko.com wrote:
With maven core
Robert,
I think it's reasonable at this point to move to Java 1.7. I'd really prefer to
use new features and given Java 1.7 is about to be EOL'd I don't think it's
very practical staying on Java 1.6.
On Mar 5, 2015, at 8:09 AM, Stephen Connolly stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com
wrote:
We
+1
On 5 March 2015 at 12:19, Igor Fedorenko i...@ifedorenko.com wrote:
With maven core version change to 3.3.0 on master, any objections I
change compile source/target to java 7?
--
Regards,
Igor
-
To unsubscribe,
+1
(both for the move to java 7, Robert's concerns and Stephen justification)
another reason: the next Maven core minor version bump isn't expected before a
while
let's use the 3.3.0 minor version choice done on Maven features be used on
this internal JDK choice update too
Regards,
Hervé
Le
2015-03-05 17:26 GMT+01:00 Robert Scholte rfscho...@apache.org:
Op Thu, 05 Mar 2015 14:16:24 +0100 schreef Igor Fedorenko
i...@ifedorenko.com:
Improvements to standard library, nio in particular, is another big
reason for me. For example, Files#walkFileTree is significantly faster
than
+1 :)
K
2015-03-05 13:27 GMT+01:00 Anders Hammar and...@hammar.net:
I think this is what we decided on - support latest and one prior released
JDK version.
IF we do, we need to update the README file in the distro as well as the
system requirements page online.
/Anders
On Thu, Mar 5,
I don't know the numbers, but I think JDK6 is still used a lot by the
community.
Current code builds fine with JDK6.
Which JDK7 specific features do you want to use, which are not possible
with the current codebase?
Without any critical codechanges I'd go for -1.
Robert
Op Thu, 05 Mar 2015
+1
--
Thanks,
~t~
On 5 Mar 2015 at 13:28:25, Anders Hammar (and...@hammar.net) wrote:
I think this is what we decided on - support latest and one prior released
JDK version.
IF we do, we need to update the README file in the distro as well as the
system requirements page online.
With maven core version change to 3.3.0 on master, any objections I
change compile source/target to java 7?
--
Regards,
Igor
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail:
I think this is what we decided on - support latest and one prior released
JDK version.
IF we do, we need to update the README file in the distro as well as the
system requirements page online.
/Anders
On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Igor Fedorenko i...@ifedorenko.com wrote:
With maven core
This is chicken-and-egg situation. We won't use java 7 features unless
the code targets java 7.
Try-with-resources and multi-exception catch are the too features I'd
like to start using throughout the code. Although not critical per se,
I think they make writing correct maintainable code
What I'd like to stress here is that we're talking about Maven core, not
our plugins. We've had a separate discussion/thread for the plugins and for
those we've decided to go with a Java 6 requirement.
As plugins were mentioned in this thread as well I want to make sure there
is no
+1
I just find the change/discussion a bit too fast.
You should wait longer than ~10h as the world has more timezone.
IMHO waiting for the answer from various members of the community is more
like 2/3 days.
Cheers
--
Olivier
On 6 Mar 2015 10:37, Jason van Zyl ja...@takari.io wrote:
Ok, the
70 matches
Mail list logo
