On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 02:36:06PM +0200, Branko Čibej wrote: > On 18.05.2018 14:34, Stefan Sperling wrote: > > On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 08:22:46AM -0400, James McCoy wrote: > >> On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 09:46:41AM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote: > >>> Elsewhere in this discussion thread it was suggested to raise the > >>> minimum JDK version requirement to Java 1.8. > >>> Your statement "please keep backward compatibility with older JDKs" > >>> could mean anything between "please leave everything as it is now" to > >>> "bumping the minimum requirement to Java 1.8 is absolutely fine with me". > >>> > >>> This requirement would be introduced for Subversion 1.11. > >>> Can you explain which versions of OS X / JDK you expect to support when > >>> Subversion 1.11 will be released in probably 2 to 3 years from now? > >> No one would be able to build the stable release of Subversion with JDK > >> 10 for 2 to 3 years? > >> > >> Supporting both pre-8 and post-8 JDKs wouldn't be trivial. I've been > >> working under the assumption that we can bump up to JDK 8 and backport > >> that change to 1.10. > >> > >> If that's not going to be the case, should my current work still go to > >> trunk? Then someone can find the time to adapt things to also work with > >> pre-8 JDK? > > I think you should aim to proceed with your plan as it was. > > If anyone has strong objections to this, they should be constructive and > > try to provide an alternative solution without pushing an additional > > burden on you. > > Given that Java 6 and 7 are obsolete ... I think it won't hurt to make > Java 8 the oldest supported version on the 1.10.x branch. > -- Brane
Yes, I agree. Sorry for confusing the matter by mentioning 1.11. I was just responding to the vaguely worded request from Syntevo and I hadn't read the context of this entire discussion thread yet. We would normally not change minimum dependency versions within a stable release branch but this looks like a case where we can make a reasonable exception to this rule.
