>Sorry Vladimir but I don't understand your argument >Nobody expects Commons Lang to preserve Java 7 compatibility (or even less) in 2025. Emmanuel,
sebb said: >sebb: Their policy is the cause; we should not have to cater for their > self-imposed restriction you said: >If users adopt such policies that's their problem, we've done our homework What I say is that the mere fact that commons-lang3 dropping Java support in minor releases makes a perfect case to create the policy of restricting the minor upgrades. It is not like someone invents a dumb policy of not upgrading, but they might have a reasonable justification to bump patch versions only, and the justification is highly relevant for commons-lang3 (it drops features in minor releases). I never said I want commons-lang3:3.20.0 to support Java 7. What I say is that it is unfair to say "we've done our homework", and "their self-imposed restriction". The users of commons-lang3:3.8.1 + Java 1.7 are stuck, and they can't easily upgrade to 3.18.0 to patch the CVE. If you say "3.8.1 was released 6 years ago, it is unsupported", then it is indeed one of the ways of doing business. However, it is still a reasonable excuse for "not being able to upgrade to the latest minor". I'm leaning towards that Java version requirements should be lifted in major versions, not minor ones. ---- All in all, the exact story of 3.x does not seem to be very relevant for 2.6.1 release. How can I help in making 2.6.1 happen? The code is there, the build seems to succeed, etc. Vladimir
