I completely second Manfred here: - People who are willing to use Maven 4 soonish should be considered fast movers. So I guess these are already using Java 21 anyways. - Going from Java 17 to 21 does not require major adaptions if any in code in my experience. - New LTS Java 25 comes out this year, so even 21 will not be the shiny new version.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen Mirko Friedenhagen — Sent from my mobile > Am 04.05.2025 um 20:45 schrieb Manfred Moser <manf...@simpligility.ca>: > > Hi all, > > I find this extremely disappointing and also confusing. A majority of binding > and non-binding votes opted FOR adopting Java 21. How can this be justified > with our procedures? > > Here are my arguments for adopting Java 21 that seems to have been asked for > although they are imho obvious. > > * Maven 4 will be a brand new release with many changes. An upgrade of the > required Java version is already included. Changing that from 17 to 21 does > not have that much impact on users. > > * Java 21 is the latest current Java LTS release, and Java 25 as the next LTS > will be out in September .. that might even be before Maven 4 ships. > > * Java 21 has numerous improvements on top of 17 that making programming with > it better (and newer versions are even better). > > * Programmers will be less inclined to help a project that uses an old Java > version (17 is 3 years old.. ) and therefore prohibits them for using modern > programming styles and usage. > > * Performance of Java 21 is better and it is more suitable to run on > containers (which is common for CI and CD systems these days. > > * As a project overall we should strive to provide modern powerful tooling > and that also includes using modern runtime versions and taking advantage of > new features. > > * A later upgrade to Java 21 in in 4.1 for example seem to make sense sense > for a minor version update. > > * Holding us back to Java 17 means we can not start refactoring the code to > take advantage of features from 18, 19, 20, and 21. > > Beyond that I want to discount the "valid" arguments: > > * Procedurally there is nothing wrong with changing in the RC phase. There is > no rule about how long that phase is and how many RCs there should be. > > * The new constraints on users only apply if they upgrade to Maven 4 .. which > is completely optional. > > * Even people who voted with -1 said that they would like to upgrade and that > it would be nice, so what is really holding this back. > > I therefore ask for the conclusion to be reconsidered and following our > majority rules to adopt the raise to Java 21 as requirements for Maven 4 > before we release a final version. > > Manfred > >> On 2025-05-03 11:57 p.m., Matthias Bünger wrote: >> Morning everyone, >> first I would like to thank everybody who participated in the vote [*1] >> about lifting the required Java version to 21 for Maven 4.0.0. >> >> The vote has ended with the following votes: >> >> -------------- >> Binding votes: >> >> +1: Sylwester Lachiewicz, Karl Heinz Marbaise, Tamás Cservenák, Benjamin >> Marwell, Arnaud Héritier, Tibor Digaňa >> >> -1: Michael Osipov, Maarten Mulders, Olivier Lamy, Slawomir Jaranowski, >> Hervé Boutemy >> >> >> Non-binding votes: >> >> +1: Gary Gregory, Mateusz Gajewski, Mantas Gridinas, Rodrigo Bourbon, >> Willker Gomes, Hans Aikema, Martin Desruisseaux, Torsten Heit, Sandra >> Parsick, Dawid Law, Philipp Picej, John Neffenger, Jeremy Landis, Daniel B. >> Widdis, Michael Bien, Gregorz Grzybek, Kévin Buntrock, Jorge Solorzano, Mark >> Derricutt, Matthias Bünger, Basil Crow, Romain Manni-Bucau, Thomas Sundberg, >> Anders Hammar, Piotr P. Karwasz, Niels Basjes, Enrico Olivelli >> >> -1: Elliotte Rusty Harold >> >> -------------- >> >> 5 out of 11 binding votes are -1 with valid arguments, including that there >> is no actual need to upgrade, that (it's too late, as ) we are already in RC >> phase, and that it might put on new constraints to users. The vote was (in >> line to the vote about lifting Maven 4 to Java 17) a "procedural majority >> vote", meaing a simple majority of binding votes would be enough to >> considered it to be passed. But due the high number of negative votes and >> brought up arguments, I don't think we should ignore them but take them into >> consideration for the benefit of the Maven community. Therefore I call the >> vote to be non successful. We can reevaluate in the future, including having >> a closer look at / discussion about the benefits and constraints of raising >> the Java version. >> >> >> Wish you a happy sunday! >> Matthias >> >> [*1]: https://lists.apache.org/thread/mjbx64vlbd346ov3l4wj6fy9vh8608vr >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
