BIG +1 for 6, and small -1 for 7 for my own selfish reasons. The old versions will always be available, and are forkable for anyone that needs a fix, hence small -1 and not crying and moaning.
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Stephen Connolly < stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 23 July 2013 15:29, Lennart Jörelid <lennart.jore...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > +1000 .... which is a rather odd number for a vote; blame Stephen > instead > > of me. :) > > > > I think we can skip the 1.6 release of the JDK as a Maven basis; JDK 1.6 > is > > at or near EOL and the step from one > > minimum JDK version to another (i.e. JDK 1.7) would be just as painful as > > the step to JDK 1.6 - but with added > > longevity, feature set and power. > > > > > I am not against holding a vote for Java 1.7 *after* we have got up to Java > 1.6. OpenJDK6 is an open source implementation of Java 6 that essentially > means that it is possible to fix issues with Java 6 going forward. It is > not possible to do that with Java 5 as there is no open source release. > > Let's get the baseline moved... the Jenkins project recently moved to Java > 1.6 as the minimum runtime requirement (while keeping animal-sniffer so > that only Java 1.5 APIs are permitted in Jenkins core... in case there is a > backlash)... hopefully if we set a date, other projects will line up on > that date (I know Kohsuke would be keen to see Jenkins drop the Java 1.5 > API requirements on Jenkins and IBM EOLing JDK 5 for z/OS seems like a fine > justification to cull JDK 5) > > -Stephen >
