Am 2018-05-20 um 16:03 schrieb Stefan Sperling:
> 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
>> reasons:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Michael
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> 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.
Hi Stefan,
first of all I am a more-than-happy Subversion user for more than ten
years now, second as an ASF member I can take the stake. I use
Subversion and the bindings on several operation systems and in Eclipse.
The Maven project was just an example how we do it and that we don't
change such requirements in a maintenance branch for a minor version.
I fully understand that javah is code and the bindings cannot be
compiled. But this is just another issue we need to solve, though I
haven't looked into the autoconf scripts what is exactly done.
> 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.
My simple objection is that the raise has to happen before 1.10 has been
announced, people might rely on how the baseline has been drawn. That's
all I am trying to say. Believe me, there are so many people using ASF
software, but never contributing back, but start yelling when their
stuff breaks. The same not-so-smart move has been done by Oracle, they
provided throughout Java 9 EA 32 bit binaries, but dropped them from the
GA release w/o further notice. People were pissed.
I am always willing to help ASF fellows as I have done with Ivan and
Lieven for serf stuff. If there is a branch need to review or step in,
no issue. Just waiting for some lines.
Michael
Received on 2018-05-20 22:26:53 CEST