"You can run maven with Java 8 right now, so it is not a change in any way for those users."
This equates to ruling out developers who are forced to use older JDKs/JREs if you look at it the other way. "I agree that jumping to Java 8 would be unwise. I think we can wait until 4.x. Don’t get me wrong, I’d prefer to use Java 8 and I do for almost everything else but I don’t think there’s any dire rush." As per usual, Jason has it right, IMO. Don't forget Maven is a tool, and as with libs, the decision to push everything above you upward is a dangerous one. As far as tools go in J land, they don't come much more foundational than Maven. Regards, Fred. On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 9:38 PM, Stephen Connolly < stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: > If we look at our JVM company history, IIRC > > 2.0 = Java 1.4 > 2.1 = Java 1.4 > 2.2 = Java 1.5 > 3.0 = Java 1.5 > 3.1 = Java 1.6 > 3.2 = Java 1.6 > 3.3 = Java 1.7 > > (I may have the jump versions out as this is from memory on my phone) > > So historically we have viewed bumping the minimum Java version as a minor > change. The only strong argument I can see for running with 4.0 is to align > the modelVersion... On the other hand actually having a maven version > number that matches the modelVersion might cause confusion in users... The > "oh this is moselVersion 4.0.0 so you need to use at least Maven 4"... On > the one hand, great for adoption and we will want that for modelVersion > 5.0.0... On the other hand it gives a false impression... > > So the question really becomes how intrinsic a part of the maven API is the > baseline Java version. > > You can run maven with Java 8 right now, so it is not a change in any way > for those users. > > We do have to start to recognise the risk of dependencies compiled with JDK > 8... IOW when releasing bits of Maven we strictly require the release > manager to use the base Java version. That puts restrictions on what the > developers can use. > > The base version for plugins will always lag behind the base version for > core. So, for example, plugins are only now getting up to Java 1.6 as a > baseline... But it is getting harder for me to get a Java 6 to compile > with... I know for building the animal sniffer signatures I couldn't get > JDKs that could be installed on my primary OS at the time (Linux) down > below 1.4... With some VMs I was able to get down to 1.3 for some JVMs and > one set of 1.2 signatures. I can't get a Java 1.5 for my Mac... The 1.6 is > getting hard we to install... So 1.7 is an effective baseline unless I > develop in a VM... What will the story be in 2-3 years? The choice we make > now affects that future. > > JDK 9 or 10 will drop support for at least -target 1.6 and perhaps -target > 1.7 so as I see it we have to start being more aggressive whether that > starts now or in 6 months when JDK 9 comes out is a timing question only > IMHO > > On Wednesday 2 December 2015, Hervé BOUTEMY <herve.bout...@free.fr> wrote: > > > from source code point of view, you don't need to change anything to > > compile > > with JDK 8, true > > > > But what we showed with Arnaud in our ApacheCON demo (sorry to tell a lot > > about it, but that was the topic...), JDK 8 compiler may introduce Java 8 > > API > > references into bytecode from source that don't have any JDK 8 reference > > See bonus demo [1] for a demo :) > > > > This is the first time in JDK history that such a behaviour happens: > using > > JDK > > 8 instead of JDK 7 for launching Maven/javac does not give same result > > (unless > > using toolchains, of course). > > > > That's why I currently fear with JDK 8 that people will get some > unexpected > > failures. And during the conf, for a few attendees, this demo gave a > "now I > > understand what happened to me on one of my builds..." reaction > > > > Regards, > > > > Hervé > > > > [1] > > > https://github.com/MavenDemo/java-evolving-en/blob/master/toolchains/bonus.sh > > > > Le mardi 1 décembre 2015 08:10:51 Kristian Rosenvold a écrit : > > > Technically, JDK8 is entirely undramatic for maven; I'm having a hard > > > time understanding why it should trigger any api changes or any other > > > "4.0" reasons. > > > > > > I cannot make heads or tails of the supposed versioning policy, the > > > language is too convoluted for me or I'm just not smart enough. > > > > > > If we are to stay aligned with current practice, jdk8 should be a > > > minor release. As for the actual topic of "should" we switch, i'm > > > always in favour of moving forwards. But not in any religious sense. > > > > > > > > > Kristian > > > > > > 2015-12-01 6:59 GMT+01:00 Mirko Friedenhagen <mfriedenha...@gmail.com > > <javascript:;>>: > > > > +1 for Java 8 and the version bump to 4.x,.communicates the change > more > > > > clearly. > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > Mirko > > > > -- > > > > Sent from my mobile > > > > On Nov 30, 2015 23:44, "Stephen Connolly" > > > > <stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com <javascript:;>> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > >> I have no issues if we want to call the next version 4.0.x rather > than > > > >> 3.4.x > > > >> > > > >> In my view there are some advantages to using the 4.0.x version > > number as > > > >> a > > > >> Java 8 bump... namely that leaves the modelVersion 5.0 changes to > > Maven > > > >> 5.0 > > > >> > > > >> And let's face it, it will just be less confusing to users to say > "To > > > >> build > > > >> a modelVersion 5.0 pom you need Maven 5" > > > >> > > > >> So if there is strong interest in jumping to Java 8 perhaps we just > > bite > > > >> the bullet and jump to Maven 4.0 with Java 8 now and then we can > start > > > >> the > > > >> model version 5.0 debate in earnest as we plan the features for > Maven > > 5.0 > > > >> ;-) > > > >> > > > >> -Stephen > > > >> > > > >> On 30 November 2015 at 22:25, Jason van Zyl <ja...@takari.io > > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > >> > I agree that jumping to Java 8 would be unwise. I think we can > wait > > > >> > until > > > >> > 4.x. Don’t get me wrong, I’d prefer to use Java 8 and I do for > > almost > > > >> > everything else but I don’t think there’s any dire rush. > > > >> > > > > >> > > On Nov 30, 2015, at 2:00 PM, Michael Osipov < > micha...@apache.org > > <javascript:;>> > > > >> > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > Am 2015-11-30 um 22:18 schrieb Stephen Connolly: > > > >> > >> Picking up from > > > >> > > > >> > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/maven-dev/201511.mbox/%3CCA%2BnP > > > >> nMyjogmqRweYbxLuULLB9ve2P6MPcQuH%2BPkxcNn-oN4GPg%40mail.gmail.com > > %3E>> > > > >> > >> (and my follow up to that but archive.apache.org is being a > tad > > > >> > >> slow) > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> Here is our policy: > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> The development line of Maven core should require a minimum JRE > > > >> > > > >> version > > > >> > > > >> > >>> that is no older than 18 months after the end of Oracle's > public > > > >> > > > > >> > updates > > > >> > > > > >> > >>> for that JRE version at the time that the first version of the > > > >> > > > > >> > development > > > >> > > > > >> > >>> line was released, but may require a higher minimum JRE > version > > if > > > >> > > > > >> > other > > > >> > > > > >> > >>> requirements dictate a higher JRE version > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> (Source: > > > >> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/Version+number+policy > > > >> > > > >> > ) > > > >> > > > > >> > >> OK, so it's a draft policy... but we've all been silent on the > > > >> > >> draft, > > > >> > > > >> so > > > >> > > > >> > >> lazy consensus! > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> Now in > > http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/eol-135779.html > > > >> > > > > >> > they > > > >> > > > > >> > >> state: > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> after April 2015, Oracle will not post further updates of Java > > SE 7 > > > >> > >> to > > > >> > > > > >> > its > > > >> > > > > >> > >>> public download sites > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> So per our (draft) version number policy, we can keep Java 7 as > > the > > > >> > >> baseline :-( or we can choose to upgrade code to Java 8 > (because > > we > > > >> > > > > >> > want to > > > >> > > > > >> > >> use lambdas... there's a requirement) > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> So assuming we bump the master branch of Maven core to 3.4.0, > > what > > > >> > > > >> Java > > > >> > > > >> > >> version do we want to use as the baseline? > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> There are thankfully only two options: > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> Java 7 > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> + Not actually changing things > > > >> > >> + May make it easier to drive adoption > > > >> > >> - Still can't use newer language features in core > > > >> > >> - Java 7 is EOL and it may get harder for developers to > source > > > >> > >> JDKs > > > >> > > > >> to > > > >> > > > >> > >> test and develop against > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Bumping Java requirements again in minor (!) release is insane. > I > > am > > > >> > > > > >> > against that, regardless Oracle has set this EoL or not. Folks at > > > >> > Commons > > > >> > are doing the right this. Bump requirement with a major not a > minor. > > > >> > Moreover, we have too many components which have been neglected > for > > > >> > > > >> years, > > > >> > > > >> > too many outstanding issues in JIRA. E.g., Doxia, I try to fix > some > > > >> > once > > > >> > > > >> in > > > >> > > > >> > a while but there a too few of us to take care of the entire Maven > > > >> > ecosystem. > > > >> > > > > >> > > I would rather see us to bringing the entire system on a decent > > level > > > >> > > > > >> > before we make a big leaps which Java. It does not make sense to > be > > to > > > >> > > > >> put > > > >> > > > >> > Maven on the fast lane but let other components suffer at the edge > > of > > > >> > the > > > >> > road. > > > >> > > > > >> > > Michael > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > > <javascript:;> > > > >> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > <javascript:;> > > > >> > > > > >> > Thanks, > > > >> > > > > >> > Jason > > > >> > > > > >> > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > >> > Jason van Zyl > > > >> > Founder, Takari and Apache Maven > > > >> > http://twitter.com/jvanzyl > > > >> > http://twitter.com/takari_io > > > >> > --------------------------------------------------------- > > > >> > > > > >> > Be not afraid of growing slowly, be only afraid of standing still. > > > >> > > > > >> > -- Chinese Proverb > > > >> > > > > >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > > <javascript:;> > > > >> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > <javascript:;> > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > <javascript:;> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > <javascript:;> > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org <javascript:;> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > <javascript:;> > > > > > > -- > Sent from my phone >
