+1 for moving to at least 1.6 or even 1.7. While 1.8 would be the release with more interesting features, I think requiring this would be too early.
Regards Mirko -- Sent from my mobile On Dec 25, 2014 1:12 PM, "Lennart Jörelid" <[email protected]> wrote: > Quite true. > > :) > > But this opens another interesting discussion. > Do we move the codehaus products with the slowest of the major JDK release > cycles (i.e. to match the IBM JDK release cycle in this case)? > Or with the Oracle JDK's release cycles? > > There may not be much difference in the mechanics of JDK 6 and JDK 7 - but > there are certainly differences between JDK 8 and JDK 9, which we have to > cater for (or at least create a strategy to handle). If so - do we aim for > introducing module mechanics to match Oracle's JDK 9 release or the > eventual IBM JDK's release? Or something else entirely? > > > > 2014-12-25 12:46 GMT+01:00 Kristian Rosenvold < > [email protected]> > : > > > 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] > > > > > > > -- > > -- > +==============================+ > | Bästa hälsningar, > | [sw. "Best regards"] > | > | Lennart Jörelid > | EAI Architect & Integrator > | > | jGuru Europe AB > | Mölnlycke - Kista > | > | Email: [email protected] > | URL: www.jguru.se > | Phone > | (skype): jgurueurope > | (intl): +46 708 507 603 > | (domestic): 0708 - 507 603 > +==============================+ >
