I could see us building and running on LTS versions only (17, 21) but not anything else feels restrictive. Building on Java 21 will also let us avoid trouble (maybe) with running on 21. IOW, I hope-wish for that GitHub builds run and test on 17, 21, and 22-EA as a nice-to-have.
Gary On Tue, Dec 5, 2023, 7:49 AM Volkan Yazıcı <vol...@yazi.ci> wrote: > I disagree with having an open-ended compiler baseline requirement due to > > 1. It is not a minor task to bump the compiler version. The Java 17 > upgrade task was on hold already for several months due to its > intricacies. > As a matter of fact, you were the one who dropped the ball after the > Java > 11 upgrade. (It was a rightful decision and I am glad you did the hard > work > of Java 11 upgrade. 🙇) > 2. Fixing the baseline will keep everybody (maintainers, individual > contributors, etc.) on the same page due to no moving parts. Less "Are > you > using Java 17?"-kind questions while troubleshooting. > 3. Those who want to test Log4j against new JDKs still can easily: > `-Denforcer.skip` > 4. `.java-version` doesn't support ranges (AFAIK) > 5. I don't find it annoying. On the contrary, several other major > projects adopt this pattern: Spring Boot > < > https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-boot/blob/main/buildSrc/build.gradle#L13 > >, > JUnit > < > https://github.com/junit-team/junit5/blob/main/gradle/plugins/settings.gradle.kts#L4 > >, > JCTools <https://github.com/JCTools/JCTools/blob/master/pom.xml#L167>, > Guava <https://github.com/google/guava/blob/master/pom.xml#L113>, etc. > 6. I don't see a compelling use case. > > All that said, I am not strongly opinionated about this and I wouldn't stop > you from replacing `[17,18)` with `[17,)` in `/pom.xml`. > > On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 1:19 PM Piotr P. Karwasz <piotr.karw...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hi Volkan, > > > > On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 at 11:50, Volkan Yazıcı <vol...@yazi.ci> wrote: > > > > > > I have just updated `main` to require Java 17 for compiling and to > target > > > Java 17. Previously both were Java 11. If you have objections, please > > > discuss in this thread. > > > > I am Ok with bumping the bytecode to Java 17. > > > > Regarding the build requirements I would give by **default** a larger > > spectrum of possible JDKs. > > Right now we only accept JDK 17 in the default Maven profile. A Log4j > > contributor is forced to install JDK 17 for a build to succeed, which > > might be annoying. Therefore it might be better to: > > > > * set the Enforcer plugin to accept > > [minimum_JDK_required_by_Maven_plugins,) > > * set [17,18) **only** in the `release` plugin. > > > > BTW: when we bump BND to 7.x, minimum_JDK_required_by_Maven_plugins will > > be 17. > > > > Piotr > > >
