> Who would we be forcing to upgrade? It is the 'main' branch: unreleased. >
It will be released, eventually, right? In six months, a year maybe? Then it's people like me who would be affected: we use Lucene internally and this one dependency would push the entire stack to Java 17. I wouldn't mind this at all if there was something super-attractive there to gain but all the benefits of Java 17 to me at the moment lie at source-code level... I just don't see much benefit at runtime. So I personally don't feel the need to upgrade - this applies to Lucene, my own software and even my shell default... D. > > +1 to bump to 17 > > On Wed, Nov 3, 2021 at 11:19 AM Dawid Weiss <dawid.we...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Do we gain much from such a requirement? Are there APIs that make things > run faster or perform better? > > > > The downside for me is that if Lucene requires Java 17 then all > downstream projects will be forced to require Java 17. And Java 11 LTS is > still perfectly fine and supported. So unless there is a gain, I wouldn't > force folks to upgrade. > > > > Dawid > > > > On Wed, Nov 3, 2021 at 3:50 PM Adrien Grand <jpou...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> Hello, > >> > >> Now that the main branch is the future 10.0 version, would there be any > concern if we bumped the minimum Java version to 17 instead of 11? > >> > >> -- > >> Adrien > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > >
