Note that if we decide to go with Java 17 instead of 11, I won't stand in the way ;-)
Gary On Tue, Jun 6, 2023, 06:09 Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > The case for maven is quite different IMO because it is a development tool > and does not or should not affect the runtime requirements of the artifacts > built. > > Gary > > On Tue, Jun 6, 2023, 03:28 Piotr P. Karwasz <piotr.karw...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 at 18:33, Matt Sicker <m...@musigma.org> wrote: >> > Piotr raised an interesting question recently which deserves a >> dedicated thread here: what should our strategy be for supporting various >> versions of Java? Our current strategy is essentially Java 8 for 2.x and >> Java 11 for 3.x, but with projects like Spring pushing Java 17 as a base >> requirement and Java 21 (the latest LTS release) coming out in September, >> we may want to devise a version support strategy. >> >> A similar discussion is going on the Maven mailing list: >> https://lists.apache.org/thread/woz6pj6686rxmso47zm35vdxs5vt3bqb >> >> Piotr >> >
