It appears that IBM JDK6 is EOL september next year. People move at
different speeds :)

Kristian



2014-12-25 6:25 GMT+01:00 Gary Gregory <[email protected]>:
> +1
>
> Gary
>
> <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Benson Margulies 
> <[email protected]> </div><div>Date:12/24/2014  17:08  (GMT-05:00) 
> </div><div>To: Maven Developers List <[email protected]> </div><div>Cc:  
> </div><div>Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Move everything to 1.6, take 2 (was: Re: I 
> can't make a
>   release ...) </div><div>
> </div>Here's what I don't understand. I can see why people need to keep
> building apps that run on antediluvian version. I can't see why it's
> such a problem for a tool, such as Maven, to require 1.7. Who are we
> accomodating by the current policy, or even the 1.6 plan?
>
> Meanwhile, it seems to me that we don't need a complex system of
> releases. There will be no new 3.0.x releases except for some sort of
> exceptional event. If we simply open up everything except the 3.0.x
> branch of the core to 1.6 or 1.7, then the worst that happens is, in
> the event of a security issue out in a component or a plugin, someone
> has to make a branch from the last 1.5-compatible release to make the
> fix.
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Milos Kleint <[email protected]> wrote:
>> +1.
>>
>> jdk 1.6 is EOL-ed for some time (Feb 2013) already and even 1.7 will be
>> EOL-ed in April 2015..
>>
>> I would suggest moving straight to 1.7 but I guess that's been already
>> discussed.
>>
>> Milos
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 7:54 AM, Robert Scholte <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> +1, would also make testing with JDK9 easier, although I've already found
>>> a good solution for that.
>>>
>>> Robert
>>>
>>> Op Wed, 24 Dec 2014 14:20:06 +0100 schreef Kristian Rosenvold <
>>> [email protected]>:
>>>
>>>
>>>  Oops. Snappy contains 1.6 java bytecode, which breaks the build on maven
>>>>> plugins. We need to upgrade to 1.6; I'm taking this to the mailing list :)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Last time discussed this we established a consensus to establish 3.0.5
>>>> (maybe 3.0.6) as a minimum baseline for the 3.x range of plugins.
>>>>
>>>> This 3.0.X has a 1.5 java requirement.  The problem is that *everyone*
>>>> is moving to 1.6 and it's getting increasingly hard to maintain a 1.5
>>>> code base. As an example, I have been moving code to apache commons,
>>>> but we're basically unable to use this effort because commons is now
>>>> 1.6. alternately I need to backport the code in a
>>>> "source-level-shading", but these things are getting silly.
>>>>
>>>> I propose the following:
>>>>
>>>> Make the 3.x line of plugins java 1.6+ only.
>>>> Release all shared utilities in 1.6 versions in the 3.x version range.
>>>> 3.0.X maven versions stay "forever" on the 2.x line of plugins and jdk
>>>> 1.5.
>>>> The most recent core version moves defaults to the 3.x range of plugins.
>>>> The parent poms migrate to 3.x range some time in the near future.
>>>>
>>>> Keeping 3.0.x fixes to a minuimum (and "critical" stuff) only, will
>>>> ensure that we can still stay 1.5 compatible here.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Kristian
>>>>
>>>> 2014-12-24 13:52 GMT+01:00 Benson Margulies <[email protected]>:
>>>>
>>>>> I don't have access to push a plexus-archiver release, could you
>>>>> please do the honors.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, looks like my splitting job left some work behind in terms of
>>>>> the parent pom.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>
>>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to