Something like: 3.0 : Java 11 ... Maintenance ~3.5 : Java 17
On Tue, Jun 6, 2023, 06:10 Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >>> >>
