+1 on java 17. Stats matter but can tell you we are 90% jdk 17 on builds already, don't use toolchains. It's unnecessary. A lot of it is education to development staff that Devops must push and enable teams. Maven could help drive that here...
As to comment on 3.8 vs 3.9. We already dropped 3.8 in mass. We allowed both until docker containers were updated. Once done we blocked 3.8 outright for 3.9.1 or better. Expect same with maven 4. And further any plugins out of 100s we use, if not there we will fork them. With spring forcing 17 far too soon and spring boot still stating the intend to drop all old support in November, developers are being forced. So back to maven, why struggle with old coding patterns when java offers so many enhancements that are otherwise missed? And stats matter. What's the pull numbers from sonatype show? Growth pattern at all yet? I'd say once the tipping point is seen, move. And keep in mind big companies hide their full usage so it's hard-to-get real stats. And finally, I see no point to those that choose to stay on legacy. I bet in their cases libraries are not maintained either but that shouldn't be everyone's problem. Provide a clear path and cater more towards those that care. We have 20 year old java products working on jdk 20 now too...so it's not a difficult ask. Just need guidance on how... Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg> ________________________________ From: Guillaume Nodet <gno...@apache.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2023 6:37:12 AM To: Maven Developers List <dev@maven.apache.org> Subject: Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0 Le mer. 31 mai 2023 à 12:28, Michael Osipov <micha...@apache.org> a écrit : > On 2023/05/31 10:03:34 Guillaume Nodet wrote: > > Le mer. 31 mai 2023 à 11:21, Michael Osipov <micha...@apache.org> a > écrit : > > > > > > I think with those improvements, requiring JDK 17 for master should > be > > > > doable. Any concerns of suggestions ? > > > > > > I am against this. There are enough people who cannot move to Java 17 > for > > > a plethora of reasons regardless of Toolchains support. We provide a > low > > > level tool and it should have a low barrier to use. Maven 4 should be > used > > > as a transitional version to 5 to cut old ties and solve many issues -- > > > even if we are in alpha phase now. > > > I bet many people will stick for 3.9.x or even 3.8.x for the years to > come. > > > > > > > I don't get the argument here. If people can stick with old versions of > > maven, this is actually an argument for moving the next releases forward, > > because that won't be a problem for them. > > If Maven 4 will be the only option for them since 3.x won't be maintained > anymore then this is a problem for many. > Who said so ? If there's a need and will to maintain the 3.x branch, so be it. No one is forbidden to work on those branches. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > -- ------------------------ Guillaume Nodet
