That makes a lot of sense. I like the version number alliteration.

On 28 January 2016 at 12:17, Johan Edstrom <seij...@gmail.com> wrote:

> That sounds rather reasonable.
>
>
> > On Jan 28, 2016, at 11:13 AM, Claus Ibsen <claus.ib...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 3:48 PM, James Carman
> > <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote:
> >> I would rather us bump the major version number if we're going to start
> >> requiring users to use Java8.
> >>
> >
> > Yeah that was also my first thought.
> >
> >
> > I would like to keep Camel 2.17 as-is on Java 1.7. Then if 2.18 is
> > Java 1.8+ then its much easier to remember as the numbers are aligned.
> >
> > Camel 2.17 = Java 1.7
> > Camel 2.18 = Java 1.8
> >
> > We can always release Camel 2.17 sooner, its been a while since 2.16,
> > so maybe aim for a release in next month?
> >
> > A reason to keep it on 1.7 is also it would otherwise throw some Camel
> > end users under the bus anticipating they can use it on Java 1.7. Then
> > we can announce Camel 2.17 would be the last release with Java 1.7 -
> > even ahead of time.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 9:35 AM Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> For master (targeting 2.17), I see we’re still setup for Java7.
> Would
> >>> it make sense to move to requiring Java8?  We can certainly start
> taking
> >>> advantage of the new things in Java8, but there are also dependencies
> (like
> >>> Jetty) that now require Java8 and more and more of them will be
> requiring
> >>> that.  (example:  CXF 3.2 will be Java8 only as well)
> >>>
> >>> It sometimes makes back merging fixes to 2.16/2.15 tricky if you use
> Java8
> >>> features, but that’s going to be a problem eventually anyway.
> >>>
> >>> Thoughts?
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Daniel Kulp
> >>> dk...@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
> >>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Claus Ibsen
> > -----------------
> > http://davsclaus.com @davsclaus
> > Camel in Action 2: https://www.manning.com/ibsen2
>
>


-- 
Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>

Reply via email to