Mailing-List: contact dev-help@maven.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Maven Developers List" <dev@maven.apache.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: anders.g.hammar@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAOonohdq08JUE5wTAHH2Ve6s3LoAF0LqjuPRmbz29o0=Pi-wbA@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CA+nPnMx7JR+r1HNAm2eDeARwp1-=5zqOPtU0ro-Z8naF-_KpRw@mail.gmail.com>
	<565CC6E6.3050508@apache.org>
	<7328A8F9-3BEB-4AAC-A1D7-DF7DA65836FD@takari.io>
	<CA+nPnMzTh_WpHfSp0v8QVtG2JRsyNrkai2NVddwCSK+Zn-6eww@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAK8jvqy04dsXjo8xp92Uaw-MDR5XxnxjAK+=EfO30UrFqAC1wg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJZRQKxBs8s=ppcYC0Vyx2uQ3zKvb9LjBieL_kVmZDTJ8hkn9g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOonohdq08JUE5wTAHH2Ve6s3LoAF0LqjuPRmbz29o0=Pi-wbA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 10:14:13 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CAKDUN1tzABMjPLqdKYJkNAfQn-cAJ0=rT0yGtNnRgU+HmLkbtQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Java version requirement for Mavan 3.4.x
From: Anders Hammar <anders@hammar.net>
To: Maven Developers List <dev@maven.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113eb396d337710525d29480

--001a113eb396d337710525d29480
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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 mo=
re
> > > 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 th=
an
> > >> 3.4.x
> > >>
> > >> In my view there are some advantages to using the 4.0.x version numb=
er
> > 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 "T=
o
> > 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 sta=
rt
> > the
> > >> model version 5.0 debate in earnest as we plan the features for Mave=
n
> > 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 wai=
t
> > until
> > >> > 4.x. Don=E2=80=99t get me wrong, I=E2=80=99d prefer to use Java 8 =
and I do for
> almost
> > >> > everything else but I don=E2=80=99t think there=E2=80=99s 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%2BnP=
nMyjogmqRweYbxLuULLB9ve2P6MPcQuH%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 publ=
ic
> > >> > 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 versio=
n
> 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 (becaus=
e
> 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 sourc=
e
> > 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 mino=
r.
> > >> > Moreover, we have too many components which have been neglected fo=
r
> > >> years,
> > >> > too many outstanding issues in JIRA. E.g., Doxia, I try to fix som=
e
> > 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 b=
e
> 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
> >
> >
>

--001a113eb396d337710525d29480--