What's the rush? Releases are cheap and easy, so I find the argument to upgrade now due to one less release is somewhat lacking.
Sent from my iPad > On 9 Mar 2015, at 2:22 am, Dennis Lundberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Igor, > > In my opinion the switch to Java 7 as a prerequisite is a non-risky > thing to do, even though I still argue that we should wait till the > next release to do it. > > Making use of the new Java 7 features in the code is the risky bit. > That in my book warrants a minor release bump rather that a patch > version bump. > >> On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Igor Fedorenko <[email protected]> wrote: >> We changed version from 3.2.x to 3.3.x quite late in the release and >> this was the reason I proposed change to java 7. It allows us continue >> 3.3.x improvement and use new language features. >> >> Personally I believe changing compiler configuration to target java 7 is >> very unlikely to introduce regressions in Maven at this point, but I can >> understand if somebody wants to do additional validation. >> >> Making actual code changes just to show we use java 7 language features >> in 3.3.0 seems unnecessary risk, however. I think it makes more sense to >> release 3.3.0 as is, then do java 7 cleanup in 3.3.1. >> >> -- >> Regards, >> Igor >> >> >>> On 2015-03-07 7:26, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote: >>> >>> Le samedi 7 mars 2015 13:06:26 Hervé BOUTEMY a écrit : >>>>> >>>>> There is nothing stoping you from releasing 3.3.0 on Java 6 now, and >>>>> 3.4.0 >>>>> on Java 7 in a few weeks. >>>> >>>> >>>> what I don't like with this plan is that it is exactly what happened with >>>> 3.1.1 then 3.2.1: >>> >>> and before 2.1.0 vs 2.2.0 >>> >>> and the only cause (IIRC) is that we had a schedule, then thought it would >>> be >>> good to upgrade, but didn't change the schedule to have 1 to 2 weeks to >>> test >>> >>> if we decide to take 2 weeks to integrate some improvements that the >>> upgrade >>> permits and test, would the upgrade to 3.3.0 be ok? >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Hervé >>> >>>> we never did any bugfix for 3.1.1, 3.1.1 was a dead branch >>>> for start. 3.2.2 bugfixes could/should have been backported to 3.1.1, but >>>> who will ever do that? (not me...) >>>> >>>> I agree that the lack of schedule can be a problem if we decide to make >>>> the >>>> release this week-end: but if we take one week to integrate Java 7 >>>> improvements (ie mostly syntax for better maintainability and a few new >>>> APIs) and take one week after that to test the result, IMHO we get a >>>> better >>>> plan: a new Maven version, with features and the assurance we'll do >>>> bugfix >>>> releases on it (the fact that it has upgraded Java requirement is just a >>>> fact on release notes) >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Hervé >>>> >>>> Le samedi 7 mars 2015 12:04:15 Dennis Lundberg a écrit : >>>>> >>>>> Hi Kristian, >>>>> >>>>> Please note that I am not opposed to using Java 7 in the core. What I am >>>>> objecting to is the planning, or rather the lack of it. >>>>> >>>>> We currently have core ready to be released on Java 6. Then just before >>>>> it >>>>> is about to be released someone says, hey lets switch Java version as >>>>> well. IMO that is something you should plan for before work is even >>>>> started >>>>> on the next release. >>>>> >>>>> Then there is the agreement we made regarding Java versions and their >>>>> EOL. >>>>> >>>>> Switching to Java 7 before the release will mean that a fewer number of >>>>> users will be able to reap the benefits of the bugfixes and features in >>>>> Maven 3.3.0. >>>>> >>>>> There is nothing stoping you from releasing 3.3.0 on Java 6 now, and >>>>> 3.4.0 >>>>> on Java 7 in a few weeks. >>>>> >>>>> Weighing in all of this I don't see any reason to change the Java >>>>> version >>>>> for 3.3.0. >>>>> Den 6 mar 2015 13:54 skrev "Kristian Rosenvold" < >>>>> >>>>> [email protected]>: >>>>>> >>>>>> I already have the full jdk7 port in a branch in github, so that >>>>>> assumption >>>>>> does not hold :) >>>>>> >>>>>> Kristian >>>>>> >>>>>> 2015-03-06 13:50 GMT+01:00 Dennis Lundberg <[email protected]>: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If we are going to release 3.3.0 very soon, like this week or the >>>>>>> next, there won't be any time to start using Java 7 features in the >>>>>>> 3.3.0 release. Therefor I would prefer to go with Java 6 for 3.3.0 and >>>>>>> announce, in the 3.3.0 release notes, that the 3.3.x line is the last >>>>>>> line that will work with Java 6. Depending on what the core developers >>>>>>> want to focus on after the 3.3.0 release is done, the core can either >>>>>>> go 3.3.1-SNAPSHOT with Java 6 or 3.4.0-SNAPSHOT with Java 7. This >>>>>>> would also be consistent with our policy [1] for plugins/components >>>>>>> wanting to move to a higher major Java version, in that we should >>>>>>> release what we currently have in trunk before upgrading to a higher >>>>>>> major Java version. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My votes are: >>>>>>> -1 for Java 7 in 3.3.0 >>>>>>> +1 for Java 7 in 3.4.0 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [1] http://maven.apache.org/developers/java6.html >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Igor Fedorenko <[email protected]> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> With maven core version change to 3.3.0 on master, any objections I >>>>>>>> change compile source/target to java 7? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>> Igor >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Dennis Lundberg >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>> 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] >> > > > > -- > Dennis Lundberg > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
