Mailing-List: contact dev-help@commons.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <571F65AC.4050604@mebigfatguy.com>
References: 
 <CACZkXPyaCEn7-0s-zT5bwtdXU+jVKS6kRdwdUYmTuOMGTGPg2A@mail.gmail.com>
	<571F243D.9030007@apache.org>
	<CAOGo0VZq4NbhCN0rMqaHuQFvWs-L1jxjgQ=TheB1gUwKHbd1xw@mail.gmail.com>
	<571F41A2.5040209@apache.org>
	<CAOGo0VbhjUdZjm2N7BHCVnmw0hrrmR=8Gv00DnALv8UO6vTxoA@mail.gmail.com>
	<571F517F.40008@apache.org>
	<CAOGo0VZAAkXAc3B0M1znfeokE9-2Zs+pGVBg=LixyFONCGWq8w@mail.gmail.com>
	<571F58B6.5000707@apache.org>
	<CAOGo0VauhcV_YjZDEbVMYqeg2FVKS=b9K9=4Eb64T2=8c4g8oA@mail.gmail.com>
	<571F6206.9060500@apache.org>
	<571F65AC.4050604@mebigfatguy.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 09:01:02 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CAP2my4YJfERK9NHgCkdJMcDUudo3DSDf12Swr5NuHhZziv6mEw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [io] Make requirement Java 7?
From: Hank Grabowski <hank@applieddefense.com>
To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114e2a58a5d488053162e2c5

--001a114e2a58a5d488053162e2c5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Piggybacking on what Dave said, Plumbr's latest stats on JDK usage as their
stats collection measure it:

https://plumbr.eu/blog/java/java-version-and-vendor-data-analyzed-2016-edit=
ion

Hank

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 8:57 AM, Dave Brosius <dbrosius@mebigfatguy.com>
wrote:

> People stuck on Java 6, for whatever inane reason, are in a very
> restrictive use case, and as such are not likely doing 'progressive' thin=
gs
> like upgrading 3rdparty jars. I just don't see the point of trying to
> support some of the new release's code base on java 6, and others on java
> 7. The extra management that's required is not worth the 2 people who wan=
t
> a new version of commons-io for java 6. We are talking about an end of li=
fe
> date coming up on 4 years.
>
>
> Just upgrade the whole thing to 7.
>
> -dave
>
>
> On 04/26/2016 08:41 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
>
>> Le 26/04/2016 14:29, sebb a =C3=A9crit :
>>
>> How can we say that the source code is Java 6 compatible if it cannot
>>> be compiled with Java 6?
>>>
>> It's Java 6 compatible at runtime, not at build time. We can say that
>> because:
>> - the project is configured to generate Java 6 compatible bytecode
>> - 99% of the code doesn't use Java 7 APIs
>>
>> The Java 6 compatibility stops if the new utils classes are used.
>>
>>
>> The ASF releases source.
>>>
>> Yes, and we release source that builds with Java 7 and runs with Java 6.
>>
>> Emmanuel Bourg
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>

--001a114e2a58a5d488053162e2c5--