On 12.10.2023 07:36, Rishabh Daim wrote:
Hi
Since we are updating the min required Java version, shouldn't we move one step
ahead and jump to Java 17.
...
We need to consider who's using Jackrabbit. As long as Oak is on Java
11, we need to provide a version compatible with it.
I'm not
Hi,
Since we are updating the min required Java version, shouldn't we move one
> step ahead and jump to Java 17.
>
Not as long as Oak only requires Java 11, no?
+1 for switching to Java 11
+1 for moving to git
Best regards,
Manfred
Am Do., 12. Okt. 2023 um 07:36 Uhr schrieb Rishabh Daim :
>
Hi
Since we are updating the min required Java version, shouldn't we move one step
ahead and jump to Java 17.
This would also help us in staying ahead of the curve and would make it easy to
jump to next LTS i.e. Java 21 in due time.
+1 for moving to Git.
Cheers
Rishabh Daim
On 2023/10/11
On 11.10.2023 19:29, Konrad Windszus wrote:
Hi,
In general +1 for requiring Java 11 from the next JR release on.
Before doing the actual branching I would love to migrate to Git though.
Good point - I had that on my TODO list, but forgot about it when I
wrote the mail.
That not only eases
Hi,
In general +1 for requiring Java 11 from the next JR release on.
Before doing the actual branching I would love to migrate to Git though.
That not only eases backporting fixes and switching between branches but
hopefully also encourages external contributions (although we do already have
Hi there,
I believe we should consider requiring Java 11 for trunk work, and when
done, create a new maintenance branch from it.
Reasons:
- some of our dependencies now require Java 11
- we currently use Jackrabbit 2.20 (Java 8) in both Oak 1.22 (Java 8)
and Oak 1.58 ("latest stable", Java
