From the peanut gallery; This type of "Support" is typical in open
source, although the money receiver is often a separate entity, that
makes a living out of this. You shouldn't aspire to have long-term
support for free. I think this is a good idea.
What could help is to tag (prefix, suffix, part of version number,...)
your release names/numbers with required JVM versions, in some way, so
the version itself makes it clear to users which JVM is needed, without
having to go looking up in a releases table.
/me crawling back under the rock
On 2025-08-08 09:14, Christofer Dutz wrote:
Hi all,
Sebasitan had a great idea, which I think initially he meant as a joke,
but I think the idea is actually really good.
We’re currently struggling a bit that we as maintainers need to stick
with Java 11 because some users claim to need it.
The thing is, this makes many things a lot harder for us maintainers.
As I just cut a new release, updating our dependencies before was more
challenging as for some dependencies I needed to track down the last
version that supports Java 11.
Also does it prevent us from updating to the latest version. Not all
projects maintain legacy branches (we don’t either).
So the idea was:
If this is really so important for some of our users and it’s more work
for us and potentially harmful for users not stuck at Java 11, how
about we create an open-collective project. If we get 2k€-3k€/Year, we
keep Java 11, otherwise we drop it and to to 17 ... or we do multiple
campaigns:
* 3k€/year for Java 11
* 1k€/year for Java 17
Otherwise we go to Java 21?
And if one version is gone, it’s gonne for good.
We could use the funds to orgaanize community events around PLC4X.
What do you think?
Chris
