On Sun, May 20, 2018 at 12:47:39PM +0200, Michael Osipov wrote:
> > On 18.05.2018 14:34, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> > > I think you should aim to proceed with your plan as it was.
> > > If anyone has strong objections to this, they should be constructive and
> > > try to provide an alternative solution without pushing an additional
> > > burden on you.
> > Given that Java 6 and 7 are obsolete ... I think it won't hurt to make
> > Java 8 the oldest supported version on the 1.10.x branch.
> I don't share this opinion as a Java developer and Maven PMC for several
> 1. I would expect a baseline raise decision for a Subversion branch to be
> announced in advance. The issue was brought up in 2017-12. No one stood up.
> 2. None of the code uses any Java 8 features, there is no compelling reason
> to raise, just because javah has been replaced.
> 3. Java 6 and 7 are available from other vendors for free or for paid for
> still sometime, regardless of Java 8.
> 4. Enterprise people tend to freeze stuff for years (which I personally
> don't like, but that is another story).
> 5. We, Maven developers, try to keep the baseline very low to give a broader
> community to possibility to use our code as long as possible.
> Recently a proposal was made to raise the Maven baseline to Java 8, I
> immediately objected because unless someone will make use of Java 8
> features, this is going to be pointless. We haven't even embraced NIO2.
> Upshot: I'd expect Subversion 1.11 to require Java 8 (or Java 11 if this
> will be available on tier 2 and 3 platforms too) for tooling reasons, but
> nothing for below.
Thanks for joining this discussion and voicing your opinion.
It is a bit unclear to me what your stake in this discussion is.
Are you using Subversion's Java bindings anywhere and would be impacted
by the proposed change? I don't see how requirements of the Maven project
would directly relate to the problem jamessan is trying to fix, namely
that Subversion 1.10 Java bindings do not compile with JDK 1.10.
If you strongly object to raising our minimum JDK dependency to 1.8 and
can give us a good reason to help us understand why we should not raise it,
would you then also help jamessan to make our build system support JDK
versions smaller than 1.8 as well as 1.10 and above? It sounds like
maintaining support for all these versions implies that extra work would
need to be done, and I'm sure we could use your help in that case.
Received on 2018-05-20 16:03:39 CEST