+1 for the PR. It doesn't drop JDK8; support, really. We can still fix JDK8 on Win11 later if needed. Or users need to install this utility.
Let's make JDK9+ on latest windows work again, better than the status quo. - Ben On 7 February 2026 05:29:05 CET, Olivier Lamy <[email protected]> wrote: >Let’s reduce the scope of this discussion to @dev only. > >I agree on the LTS point: Java 11 is getting old now and is only >supported commercially [1]. Because of that, I’m not fully convinced >that moving the minimum to 9 is really necessary either. >The idea I mentioned in another thread [2] is to keep aligning >Surefire with the model we already use for the rest of the codebase >(plugins, shared components, etc.): >- 3.x branch, versioned as 3.x, Core API 3.x (i.e. Java 8 support) >- master branch, versioned as 4.x, Core API 4.x (i.e. Java 17 support) > >This is a pattern we’ve consistently adopted across all plugins. I >don’t really see why we should change it here. >Personally, I’d prefer that we focus our efforts on 4.x (core and all >plugins), letting Java 17 naturally become the de facto standard for >all plugins/shared etc... > >Regarding the proposed fix in >https://github.com/apache/maven-surefire/pull/3252 >It deprecates the old pidchecker (which we can’t realistically remove >in 3.x anyway, so it can stay around a bit longer in 3.x.x branches >while offering an alternative), and it also makes the Surefire plugin >work on Windows without requiring the binary (e.g. on windows-latest >in GitHub Actions). > >With this fix: >The deprecated part can be fully removed in 4.x (which could start >quite soon—see steps in [2]). >The only remaining unsupported case would be Windows without the >binary on Java 8 (some recent or server Windows version, sorry, I’m >not a Windows user, so I can’t be more precise). >This should affect a fairly limited number of users, and there are >workarounds available: >- Use an older Windows runner (e.g. windows-2022 on GHA). If they’re >already on Java 8, using an older OS is probably acceptable 🙂 >- Use Java 9+ >- Install the missing binary (if that’s even possible, again not a >Windows user so I have no much idea) > >Overall, I think we can keep this simple. >The simplest path forward, in my view, would be: > >Release 3.5.5 as described in the proposal from [2] with this fix to >help many users immediately. >Then move ahead with the rest of the proposal. > >Regards, >Olivier > >[1] Oracle JDK dates https://endoflife.date/oracle-jdk >[2] https://lists.apache.org/thread/phy3g1dzvh0lkj7c3boxwz345180m8vy > > >On Sat, 7 Feb 2026 at 11:26, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> FWIW, it would make more sense to switch to an LTS version, the >> closest being 11. >> >> Gary >> >> On Fri, Feb 6, 2026 at 7:22 PM Tibor Digaňa <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > Hi all, >> > >> > I would like to have your opinion regarding this issue reported on GitHub: >> > "Surefire and Failsafe stop working on latest versions of Windows due to >> > missing wmic" >> > Please see the link here >> > https://github.com/apache/maven-surefire/issues/3176 >> > >> > I am the author who developed the PPID Process Checker. When I worked on it >> > together with Michael Osipov, we reached a consensus. It was a very nice >> > personal collaboration, and now I would be glad to have this guy back in >> > the active Maven Team again :-) >> > That time we used Java 7 or Java 8, or even both, however Java 9 was >> > available in the world. We could not use the Java 9 however it could really >> > help us. Therefore we decided to call the system library "wmic" on Windows, >> > and "ps" on *Nix world, and not Java 9. >> > >> > Due to the Microsoft Windows removed "wmic", I am open to move complete >> > Surefire project under Java 9. >> > >> > I remember how problematic life it was when we had to support both Java 7 >> > and Java 8 at the same time. I do not want to support two Java versions >> > again. >> > It would be easier for us to get a confidence from the Maven community and >> > switch to Java 9 directly. >> > I hope we would get an exception in the list of Maven plugins. >> > >> > BTW, One more remark. There are strengths to destroy this project. Let's >> > ignore these strengths. We can prevent from this happening if we are >> > positive and we are friendly working together. >> > >> > >> > Cheers >> > Tibor17 >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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]
