Thanks all for the comments, created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SLING-12426 .
Thanks, Robert On Tue, 2024-09-10 at 13:42 +0200, Julian Sedding wrote: > +1 - I think it makes sense to manage the version in each module's > pom. > > Regards > Julian > > On Sun, 8 Sept 2024 at 18:08, Konrad Windszus <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > +1 > > > > We need to adjust the enforcer rule then with regards to message > > (to mention that it needs to be set explicitly) and also the regex > > (to allow 2x versions): > > https://github.com/apache/sling-parent/blob/0bf3676a221c6beea001bea876ca9e50156f5858/sling-parent/pom.xml#L281-L285 > > > > Konrad > > > > > On 7. Sep 2024, at 12:12, Robert Munteanu <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > We have a support for different Java versions in the parent pom, > > > controlled by the sling.java.version property. This property can > > > be > > > overridden by child modules. > > > > > > As the parent pom evolves, we sometimes change the > > > sling.java.version, > > > I observed at least: > > > > > > - parent pom 26: Java 6 > > > - parent pom 32: Java 7 > > > - parent pom 35: Java 8 > > > - parent pom 50: Java 11 > > > > > > I think it's completely fine to evolve and require new java > > > versions > > > where it makes sense. At the same time, when upgrading the parent > > > pom > > > it's not obvious that this sometimes comes in with a Java version > > > requirement change. > > > > > > Upgrading the required Java version should (IMO) come with a > > > minor > > > version bump to indicate the more strict requirements. > > > Historically, > > > that has been hard to implement because the upgraded requirements > > > coming with the parent pom are largely invisible. > > > > > > I am thinking about whether it makes sense to remove the default > > > version for sling.java.version from the parent pom and then > > > requiring > > > each module to set it. This will be a one-time, one-line change > > > for > > > modules that require it but will make the requirement explicit. > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Robert > >
