maven-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Anders Hammar <and...@hammar.net>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Java version requirement for Mavan 3.4.x
Date Tue, 01 Dec 2015 09:14:13 GMT
My take is that if we bump version to 4.x we have to include some more
(major) features other than just a requirement of Java 8 as it doesn't
provide any real benefit for the user, which I'm sure they would expect
from a new major version.

If we would like to align Maven version with pom model version when we go
model 5, we could just skip Maven 4.x and go directly to Maven 5.x. If
Microsoft has done it, we can do it. :-) (Also, we skip version numbers all
the time now adays with core releases...)

/Anders

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Stephane Nicoll <stephane.nicoll@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I disagree. Changing system requirements in a minor release is kind of
> weird so I'd rather say that the current practice is problematic. I
> actually don't know the rationale to require Java8 in the codebase but if
> we do it please let's label that as a major release.
>
> S.
>
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 8:10 AM, Kristian Rosenvold <
> kristian.rosenvold@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Technically, JDK8 is entirely undramatic for maven; I'm having a hard
> > time understanding why it should trigger any api changes or any other
> > "4.0" reasons.
> >
> > I cannot make heads or tails of the supposed versioning policy, the
> > language is too convoluted for me or I'm just not smart enough.
> >
> > If we are to stay aligned with current practice, jdk8 should be a
> > minor release. As for the actual topic of "should" we switch, i'm
> > always in favour of moving forwards. But not in any religious sense.
> >
> >
> > Kristian
> >
> > 2015-12-01 6:59 GMT+01:00 Mirko Friedenhagen <mfriedenhagen@gmail.com>:
> > > +1 for Java 8 and the version bump to 4.x,.communicates the change more
> > > clearly.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Mirko
> > > --
> > > Sent from my mobile
> > > On Nov 30, 2015 23:44, "Stephen Connolly" <
> > stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> I have no issues if we want to call the next version 4.0.x rather than
> > >> 3.4.x
> > >>
> > >> In my view there are some advantages to using the 4.0.x version number
> > as a
> > >> Java 8 bump... namely that leaves the modelVersion 5.0 changes to
> Maven
> > 5.0
> > >>
> > >> And let's face it, it will just be less confusing to users to say "To
> > build
> > >> a modelVersion 5.0 pom you need Maven 5"
> > >>
> > >> So if there is strong interest in jumping to Java 8 perhaps we just
> bite
> > >> the bullet and jump to Maven 4.0 with Java 8 now and then we can start
> > the
> > >> model version 5.0 debate in earnest as we plan the features for Maven
> > 5.0
> > >> ;-)
> > >>
> > >> -Stephen
> > >>
> > >> On 30 November 2015 at 22:25, Jason van Zyl <jason@takari.io> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > I agree that jumping to Java 8 would be unwise. I think we can wait
> > until
> > >> > 4.x. Don’t get me wrong, I’d prefer to use Java 8 and I do for
> almost
> > >> > everything else but I don’t think there’s any dire rush.
> > >> >
> > >> > > On Nov 30, 2015, at 2:00 PM, Michael Osipov <michaelo@apache.org>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Am 2015-11-30 um 22:18 schrieb Stephen Connolly:
> > >> > >> Picking up from
> > >> > >>
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/maven-dev/201511.mbox/%3CCA%2BnPnMyjogmqRweYbxLuULLB9ve2P6MPcQuH%2BPkxcNn-oN4GPg%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> > >> > >> (and my follow up to that but archive.apache.org is being
a tad
> > slow)
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> Here is our policy:
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> The development line of Maven core should require a minimum
JRE
> > >> version
> > >> > >>> that is no older than 18 months after the end of Oracle's
public
> > >> > updates
> > >> > >>> for that JRE version at the time that the first version
of the
> > >> > development
> > >> > >>> line was released, but may require a higher minimum JRE
version
> if
> > >> > other
> > >> > >>> requirements dictate a higher JRE version
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> (Source:
> > >> > >>
> > >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/Version+number+policy
> > >> > )
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> OK, so it's a draft policy... but we've all been silent on
the
> > draft,
> > >> so
> > >> > >> lazy consensus!
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> Now in
> > http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/eol-135779.html
> > >> > they
> > >> > >> state:
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> after April 2015, Oracle will not post further updates of
Java SE
> > 7 to
> > >> > its
> > >> > >>> public download sites
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> So per our (draft) version number policy, we can keep Java
7 as
> the
> > >> > >> baseline :-( or we can choose to upgrade code to Java 8 (because
> we
> > >> > want to
> > >> > >> use lambdas... there's a requirement)
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> So assuming we bump the master branch of Maven core to 3.4.0,
> what
> > >> Java
> > >> > >> version do we want to use as the baseline?
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> There are thankfully only two options:
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> Java 7
> > >> > >>   + Not actually changing things
> > >> > >>   + May make it easier to drive adoption
> > >> > >>   - Still can't use newer language features in core
> > >> > >>   - Java 7 is EOL and it may get harder for developers to
source
> > JDKs
> > >> to
> > >> > >> test and develop against
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Bumping Java requirements again in minor (!) release is insane.
I
> am
> > >> > against that, regardless Oracle has set this EoL or not. Folks at
> > Commons
> > >> > are doing the right this. Bump requirement with a major not a minor.
> > >> > Moreover, we have too many components which have been neglected for
> > >> years,
> > >> > too many outstanding issues in JIRA. E.g., Doxia, I try to fix some
> > once
> > >> in
> > >> > a while but there a too few of us to take care of the entire Maven
> > >> > ecosystem.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > I would rather see us to bringing the entire system on a decent
> > level
> > >> > before we make a big leaps which Java. It does not make sense to be
> to
> > >> put
> > >> > Maven on the fast lane but let other components suffer at the edge
> of
> > the
> > >> > road.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Michael
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> > >> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >> > Thanks,
> > >> >
> > >> > Jason
> > >> >
> > >> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > >> > Jason van Zyl
> > >> > Founder, Takari and Apache Maven
> > >> > http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
> > >> > http://twitter.com/takari_io
> > >> > ---------------------------------------------------------
> > >> >
> > >> > Be not afraid of growing slowly, be only afraid of standing still.
> > >> >
> > >> >  -- Chinese Proverb
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> > >> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
> >
> >
>

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