I don't see why this makes contributions harder: develop however you want and contribute. The only minor thing is, as by default we still target java 5 for a module and you use java 6, the build will fail, you update the pom (a single property), build again and are happy. Not really hard.
But I don't want to be a road blocker here: if the majority thinks we should not support Java 5 at all anymore, let's do it. Carsten 2013/1/31 Justin Edelson <[email protected]>: > I understand the use case, but it just seems like a hassle and makes > potential contributions like Robert was suggesting harder than they need to > be. > > I want people to be able to checkout the Sling source code and make changes > to it and contribute those changes back. I don't want them wasting time > worry about (a) how to write Java 5-compatible code or (b) whether or not > to update the particular module they are interested in to Java 6. > > In other words, in the balance between "something that makes it easier to > provide bug fixes for Java 5 users" and "something that makes it easier for > people to contribute patch", I am thoroughly on the side of the latter. > > Justin > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Carsten Ziegeler <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Yeah, but if I want to fix something let's say in commons scheduler >> and this is targetted for existing installations using Java 5 and I >> don't need any Java 5 stuff, why should I have to go through the hasle >> and create my own release just to have a bundle working with Java 5? >> >> Having launchpad using Java 6 and only start with Java 6 is pretty >> fine, using just Java 6 (and higher) for CI builds is fine as well. >> I'm just talking about individual modules. >> >> Carsten >> >> 2013/1/31 Felix Meschberger <[email protected]>: >> > Hi >> > >> > In reality, the Sling Launchpad will not support Java 5 at all. >> > >> > We could just as well have the parent POM setup API checks for Java 6 >> and configure the Bundle-RequiredExecutionEnvironment appropriately. >> > >> > Regards >> > Felix >> > >> > Am 31.01.2013 um 12:58 schrieb Justin Edelson: >> > >> >> -0 >> >> >> >> Why even try to support Java 5? Let's just say Java 6 as a minimum >> across >> >> the board and be done with it. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Carsten Ziegeler < >> [email protected]>wrote: >> >> >> >>> Hi, >> >>> >> >>> we see more and more problems with supporting Java 5 and we discussed >> >>> this several times in the past year(s?). So let's finally call a vote >> >>> and see where we all are. >> >>> >> >>> I propose to drop Java 5 support in general - we should try to stick >> >>> to it where possible for supporting existing installations, but each >> >>> module should be free to set the base to Java 6 if it makes sense. >> >>> >> >>> We should also mark the bundles which require Java 6 (I think Felix >> >>> proposed a way for this some time ago). >> >>> >> >>> Please cast your votes :) >> >>> >> >>> Regards >> >>> Carsten >> >>> -- >> >>> Carsten Ziegeler >> >>> [email protected] >> >>> >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Carsten Ziegeler >> [email protected] >> -- Carsten Ziegeler [email protected]
