fluo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Require Java 8
Date Thu, 07 Jul 2016 21:14:29 GMT
I actually found it simpler to just make the change in the parent POM, and
issue a pull request against Garvit's current outstanding pull request for
the parent POM updates. That way, it'll be included when we merge in
Garvit's changes.

On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 2:25 PM Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:

> Since there appears to be some consensus on this (or at least,
> indifference), I'll go ahead and do the PR against Fluo, and after we get
> the parent POM merged in, we can make the change there.
>
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 11:10 AM Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 9:21 AM Keith Turner <keith@deenlo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> +0
>>>
>>> I am not strongly in favor, but I am not opposed.  My thoughts are :
>>>
>>>  * Nothing in 1.0.0 implementation or API will actually require Java 8.
>>> Ideally the switch would have been made earlier.  Switching at the
>>> beginning of the 1.1.0 dev cycle makes more sense to me.
>>>
>>
>> I just don't think we should be encouraging new users of a new
>> application to use EOL software. Also, if there is a problem with
>> compatibility, I'd prefer the problem occur while trying to backport Fluo
>> to Java 7, if somebody were to require that, than the problem occur while
>> trying to use a current non-EOL version.
>>
>>
>>>  * Users on Java 7 will not be able to use Fluo
>>>
>>
>> I'm okay with that. They should upgrade if they want Fluo.
>>
>>
>>>  * Fluo Recipes is already at Java 8 and its implementation heavily uses
>>> it.
>>>
>>> How will it simplify pom?
>>>
>>>
>> Specifically, it will eliminate the need to have a separate JDK8 profile
>> for Java 8 javadoc behaviors. It would also allow us to set the compiler
>> plugin properties at the parent POM level, instead of in each POM.
>>
>> These are only slight improvements.
>>
>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 4:11 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> > What do folks think about making all of Fluo require Java 8 as a
>>> minimum
>>> > before the 1.0.0 release? I think it's a good idea. It'll help with API
>>> > modifications over time, and it will simplify some parts of the parent
>>> POM.
>>> >
>>>
>>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message