+1 for keeping JDK 8 as the minimum for 5.16.0 and then focussing on bumping the minimum to JDK 11 for 5.17.0
On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 12:11 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Tim, > > I agree, let me focus on 5.16.0 running with JDK 8, 9, 11, 12 ... > > It makes sense. > > I'm completing 5.15.11 now, and 5.16.0 will follow. > > Regards > JB > > On 31/10/2019 16:53, Timothy Bish wrote: > > On 10/31/19 6:02 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > >> Hi guys, > >> > >> As I'm working on 5.16.0 release preparation, it's important to agree > >> about the minimum Java version for runtime of this version. > >> > >> The purpose is to fully support JDK 9+ (and so 11, 12, 13). > >> > >> I started some upgrade to fully support those Java versions (for > >> instance Derby 10.15.1.3 upgrade). > >> > >> We have two options here: > >> > >> - still support JDK8 and run with newer version (and then, we have to > >> keep JDK8 compliant dependencies, like Derby 10.14.2.0 for instance) > >> - define JDK9 as minimum version to run and then, we can upgrade the > >> dependencies. > >> > >> Thoughts ? > >> > >> Regards > >> JB > > > > Given how long folks have been waiting on a 5.16.0 release I'd go with > > option 2 and continue supporting JDK 8 so that a new release that can > > run on newer JDKs is out but still maintains compatibility with the > > existing supported platform. > > > > Once 5.16.0 is out then a move to JDK 11 in 5.17.0 if such a release was > > ever to be done would be the next most sensible option as that moves to > > supported JDK. > > > > -- > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > [email protected] > http://blog.nanthrax.net > Talend - http://www.talend.com >
