Re: [DISCUSS] Move everything to 1.6, take 2 (was: Re: I can't make a release ...)

[Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>]

+1

Gary 

<div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com> </div><div>Date:12/24/2014  17:08  (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: Maven Developers List <de...@maven.apache.org> </div><div>Cc:  </div><div>Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Move everything to 1.6, take 2 (was: Re: I can't make a
  release ...) </div><div>
</div>Here's what I don't understand. I can see why people need to keep
building apps that run on antediluvian version. I can't see why it's
such a problem for a tool, such as Maven, to require 1.7. Who are we
accomodating by the current policy, or even the 1.6 plan?

Meanwhile, it seems to me that we don't need a complex system of
releases. There will be no new 3.0.x releases except for some sort of
exceptional event. If we simply open up everything except the 3.0.x
branch of the core to 1.6 or 1.7, then the worst that happens is, in
the event of a security issue out in a component or a plugin, someone
has to make a branch from the last 1.5-compatible release to make the
fix.


On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Milos Kleint <mk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1.
>
> jdk 1.6 is EOL-ed for some time (Feb 2013) already and even 1.7 will be
> EOL-ed in April 2015..
>
> I would suggest moving straight to 1.7 but I guess that's been already
> discussed.
>
> Milos
>
> On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 7:54 AM, Robert Scholte <rf...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>> +1, would also make testing with JDK9 easier, although I've already found
>> a good solution for that.
>>
>> Robert
>>
>> Op Wed, 24 Dec 2014 14:20:06 +0100 schreef Kristian Rosenvold <
>> krosenvold@apache.org>:
>>
>>
>>  Oops. Snappy contains 1.6 java bytecode, which breaks the build on maven
>>>> plugins. We need to upgrade to 1.6; I'm taking this to the mailing list :)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Last time discussed this we established a consensus to establish 3.0.5
>>> (maybe 3.0.6) as a minimum baseline for the 3.x range of plugins.
>>>
>>> This 3.0.X has a 1.5 java requirement.  The problem is that *everyone*
>>> is moving to 1.6 and it's getting increasingly hard to maintain a 1.5
>>> code base. As an example, I have been moving code to apache commons,
>>> but we're basically unable to use this effort because commons is now
>>> 1.6. alternately I need to backport the code in a
>>> "source-level-shading", but these things are getting silly.
>>>
>>> I propose the following:
>>>
>>> Make the 3.x line of plugins java 1.6+ only.
>>> Release all shared utilities in 1.6 versions in the 3.x version range.
>>> 3.0.X maven versions stay "forever" on the 2.x line of plugins and jdk
>>> 1.5.
>>> The most recent core version moves defaults to the 3.x range of plugins.
>>> The parent poms migrate to 3.x range some time in the near future.
>>>
>>> Keeping 3.0.x fixes to a minuimum (and "critical" stuff) only, will
>>> ensure that we can still stay 1.5 compatible here.
>>>
>>>
>>> Kristian
>>>
>>> 2014-12-24 13:52 GMT+01:00 Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> I don't have access to push a plexus-archiver release, could you
>>>> please do the honors.
>>>>
>>>> Also, looks like my splitting job left some work behind in terms of
>>>> the parent pom.
>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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
>>
>>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org

Re: Re: [DISCUSS] Move everything to 1.6, take 2 (was: Re: I can't make a release ...)

[Lennart Jörelid <le...@gmail.com>]

... and when I say "CodeHaus" above, I mean "Apache".
Fair?

;)

2014-12-25 13:11 GMT+01:00 Lennart Jörelid <le...@gmail.com>:

> Quite true.
>
> :)
>
> But this opens another interesting discussion.
> Do we move the codehaus products with the slowest of the major JDK release
> cycles (i.e. to match the IBM JDK release cycle in this case)?
> Or with the Oracle JDK's release cycles?
>
> There may not be much difference in the mechanics of JDK 6 and JDK 7 - but
> there are certainly differences between JDK 8 and JDK 9, which we have to
> cater for (or at least create a strategy to handle). If so - do we aim for
> introducing module mechanics to match Oracle's JDK 9 release or the
> eventual IBM JDK's release? Or something else entirely?
>
>
>
> 2014-12-25 12:46 GMT+01:00 Kristian Rosenvold <
> kristian.rosenvold@gmail.com>:
>
>> It appears that IBM JDK6 is EOL september next year. People move at
>> different speeds :)
>>
>> Kristian
>>
>>
>>
>> 2014-12-25 6:25 GMT+01:00 Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>:
>> > +1
>> >
>> > Gary
>> >
>> > <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Benson
>> Margulies <bi...@gmail.com> </div><div>Date:12/24/2014  17:08
>> (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: Maven Developers List <de...@maven.apache.org>
>> </div><div>Cc:  </div><div>Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Move everything to 1.6,
>> take 2 (was: Re: I can't make a
>> >   release ...) </div><div>
>> > </div>Here's what I don't understand. I can see why people need to keep
>> > building apps that run on antediluvian version. I can't see why it's
>> > such a problem for a tool, such as Maven, to require 1.7. Who are we
>> > accomodating by the current policy, or even the 1.6 plan?
>> >
>> > Meanwhile, it seems to me that we don't need a complex system of
>> > releases. There will be no new 3.0.x releases except for some sort of
>> > exceptional event. If we simply open up everything except the 3.0.x
>> > branch of the core to 1.6 or 1.7, then the worst that happens is, in
>> > the event of a security issue out in a component or a plugin, someone
>> > has to make a branch from the last 1.5-compatible release to make the
>> > fix.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Milos Kleint <mk...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> +1.
>> >>
>> >> jdk 1.6 is EOL-ed for some time (Feb 2013) already and even 1.7 will be
>> >> EOL-ed in April 2015..
>> >>
>> >> I would suggest moving straight to 1.7 but I guess that's been already
>> >> discussed.
>> >>
>> >> Milos
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 7:54 AM, Robert Scholte <rf...@apache.org>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> +1, would also make testing with JDK9 easier, although I've already
>> found
>> >>> a good solution for that.
>> >>>
>> >>> Robert
>> >>>
>> >>> Op Wed, 24 Dec 2014 14:20:06 +0100 schreef Kristian Rosenvold <
>> >>> krosenvold@apache.org>:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>  Oops. Snappy contains 1.6 java bytecode, which breaks the build on
>> maven
>> >>>>> plugins. We need to upgrade to 1.6; I'm taking this to the mailing
>> list :)
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Last time discussed this we established a consensus to establish
>> 3.0.5
>> >>>> (maybe 3.0.6) as a minimum baseline for the 3.x range of plugins.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> This 3.0.X has a 1.5 java requirement.  The problem is that
>> *everyone*
>> >>>> is moving to 1.6 and it's getting increasingly hard to maintain a 1.5
>> >>>> code base. As an example, I have been moving code to apache commons,
>> >>>> but we're basically unable to use this effort because commons is now
>> >>>> 1.6. alternately I need to backport the code in a
>> >>>> "source-level-shading", but these things are getting silly.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I propose the following:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Make the 3.x line of plugins java 1.6+ only.
>> >>>> Release all shared utilities in 1.6 versions in the 3.x version
>> range.
>> >>>> 3.0.X maven versions stay "forever" on the 2.x line of plugins and
>> jdk
>> >>>> 1.5.
>> >>>> The most recent core version moves defaults to the 3.x range of
>> plugins.
>> >>>> The parent poms migrate to 3.x range some time in the near future.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Keeping 3.0.x fixes to a minuimum (and "critical" stuff) only, will
>> >>>> ensure that we can still stay 1.5 compatible here.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Kristian
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 2014-12-24 13:52 GMT+01:00 Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> I don't have access to push a plexus-archiver release, could you
>> >>>>> please do the honors.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Also, looks like my splitting job left some work behind in terms of
>> >>>>> the parent pom.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>>> 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
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> --
> +==============================+
> | Bästa hälsningar,
> | [sw. "Best regards"]
> |
> | Lennart Jörelid
> | EAI Architect & Integrator
> |
> | jGuru Europe AB
> | Mölnlycke - Kista
> |
> | Email: lj@jguru.se
> | URL:   www.jguru.se
> | Phone
> | (skype):    jgurueurope
> | (intl):     +46 708 507 603
> | (domestic): 0708 - 507 603
> +==============================+
>
>


-- 

--
+==============================+
| Bästa hälsningar,
| [sw. "Best regards"]
|
| Lennart Jörelid
| EAI Architect & Integrator
|
| jGuru Europe AB
| Mölnlycke - Kista
|
| Email: lj@jguru.se
| URL:   www.jguru.se
| Phone
| (skype):    jgurueurope
| (intl):     +46 708 507 603
| (domestic): 0708 - 507 603
+==============================+

Re: Re: [DISCUSS] Move everything to 1.6, take 2 (was: Re: I can't make a release ...)

[Mirko Friedenhagen <mf...@gmail.com>]

+1 for moving to at least 1.6 or even 1.7. While 1.8 would be the release
with more interesting features, I think requiring this would be too early.

Regards
Mirko
-- 
Sent from my mobile
On Dec 25, 2014 1:12 PM, "Lennart Jörelid" <le...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Quite true.
>
> :)
>
> But this opens another interesting discussion.
> Do we move the codehaus products with the slowest of the major JDK release
> cycles (i.e. to match the IBM JDK release cycle in this case)?
> Or with the Oracle JDK's release cycles?
>
> There may not be much difference in the mechanics of JDK 6 and JDK 7 - but
> there are certainly differences between JDK 8 and JDK 9, which we have to
> cater for (or at least create a strategy to handle). If so - do we aim for
> introducing module mechanics to match Oracle's JDK 9 release or the
> eventual IBM JDK's release? Or something else entirely?
>
>
>
> 2014-12-25 12:46 GMT+01:00 Kristian Rosenvold <
> kristian.rosenvold@gmail.com>
> :
>
> > It appears that IBM JDK6 is EOL september next year. People move at
> > different speeds :)
> >
> > Kristian
> >
> >
> >
> > 2014-12-25 6:25 GMT+01:00 Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>:
> > > +1
> > >
> > > Gary
> > >
> > > <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Benson
> Margulies
> > <bi...@gmail.com> </div><div>Date:12/24/2014  17:08  (GMT-05:00)
> > </div><div>To: Maven Developers List <de...@maven.apache.org>
> > </div><div>Cc:  </div><div>Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Move everything to 1.6,
> > take 2 (was: Re: I can't make a
> > >   release ...) </div><div>
> > > </div>Here's what I don't understand. I can see why people need to keep
> > > building apps that run on antediluvian version. I can't see why it's
> > > such a problem for a tool, such as Maven, to require 1.7. Who are we
> > > accomodating by the current policy, or even the 1.6 plan?
> > >
> > > Meanwhile, it seems to me that we don't need a complex system of
> > > releases. There will be no new 3.0.x releases except for some sort of
> > > exceptional event. If we simply open up everything except the 3.0.x
> > > branch of the core to 1.6 or 1.7, then the worst that happens is, in
> > > the event of a security issue out in a component or a plugin, someone
> > > has to make a branch from the last 1.5-compatible release to make the
> > > fix.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Milos Kleint <mk...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >> +1.
> > >>
> > >> jdk 1.6 is EOL-ed for some time (Feb 2013) already and even 1.7 will
> be
> > >> EOL-ed in April 2015..
> > >>
> > >> I would suggest moving straight to 1.7 but I guess that's been already
> > >> discussed.
> > >>
> > >> Milos
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 7:54 AM, Robert Scholte <rfscholte@apache.org
> >
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> +1, would also make testing with JDK9 easier, although I've already
> > found
> > >>> a good solution for that.
> > >>>
> > >>> Robert
> > >>>
> > >>> Op Wed, 24 Dec 2014 14:20:06 +0100 schreef Kristian Rosenvold <
> > >>> krosenvold@apache.org>:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>  Oops. Snappy contains 1.6 java bytecode, which breaks the build on
> > maven
> > >>>>> plugins. We need to upgrade to 1.6; I'm taking this to the mailing
> > list :)
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Last time discussed this we established a consensus to establish
> 3.0.5
> > >>>> (maybe 3.0.6) as a minimum baseline for the 3.x range of plugins.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> This 3.0.X has a 1.5 java requirement.  The problem is that
> *everyone*
> > >>>> is moving to 1.6 and it's getting increasingly hard to maintain a
> 1.5
> > >>>> code base. As an example, I have been moving code to apache commons,
> > >>>> but we're basically unable to use this effort because commons is now
> > >>>> 1.6. alternately I need to backport the code in a
> > >>>> "source-level-shading", but these things are getting silly.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I propose the following:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Make the 3.x line of plugins java 1.6+ only.
> > >>>> Release all shared utilities in 1.6 versions in the 3.x version
> range.
> > >>>> 3.0.X maven versions stay "forever" on the 2.x line of plugins and
> jdk
> > >>>> 1.5.
> > >>>> The most recent core version moves defaults to the 3.x range of
> > plugins.
> > >>>> The parent poms migrate to 3.x range some time in the near future.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Keeping 3.0.x fixes to a minuimum (and "critical" stuff) only, will
> > >>>> ensure that we can still stay 1.5 compatible here.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Kristian
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 2014-12-24 13:52 GMT+01:00 Benson Margulies <bimargulies@gmail.com
> >:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> I don't have access to push a plexus-archiver release, could you
> > >>>>> please do the honors.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Also, looks like my splitting job left some work behind in terms of
> > >>>>> the parent pom.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>>> 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
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > 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
> >
> >
>
>
> --
>
> --
> +==============================+
> | Bästa hälsningar,
> | [sw. "Best regards"]
> |
> | Lennart Jörelid
> | EAI Architect & Integrator
> |
> | jGuru Europe AB
> | Mölnlycke - Kista
> |
> | Email: lj@jguru.se
> | URL:   www.jguru.se
> | Phone
> | (skype):    jgurueurope
> | (intl):     +46 708 507 603
> | (domestic): 0708 - 507 603
> +==============================+
>

Re: Re: [DISCUSS] Move everything to 1.6, take 2 (was: Re: I can't make a release ...)

[Lennart Jörelid <le...@gmail.com>]

Quite true.

:)

But this opens another interesting discussion.
Do we move the codehaus products with the slowest of the major JDK release
cycles (i.e. to match the IBM JDK release cycle in this case)?
Or with the Oracle JDK's release cycles?

There may not be much difference in the mechanics of JDK 6 and JDK 7 - but
there are certainly differences between JDK 8 and JDK 9, which we have to
cater for (or at least create a strategy to handle). If so - do we aim for
introducing module mechanics to match Oracle's JDK 9 release or the
eventual IBM JDK's release? Or something else entirely?



2014-12-25 12:46 GMT+01:00 Kristian Rosenvold <kr...@gmail.com>
:

> It appears that IBM JDK6 is EOL september next year. People move at
> different speeds :)
>
> Kristian
>
>
>
> 2014-12-25 6:25 GMT+01:00 Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>:
> > +1
> >
> > Gary
> >
> > <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Benson Margulies
> <bi...@gmail.com> </div><div>Date:12/24/2014  17:08  (GMT-05:00)
> </div><div>To: Maven Developers List <de...@maven.apache.org>
> </div><div>Cc:  </div><div>Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Move everything to 1.6,
> take 2 (was: Re: I can't make a
> >   release ...) </div><div>
> > </div>Here's what I don't understand. I can see why people need to keep
> > building apps that run on antediluvian version. I can't see why it's
> > such a problem for a tool, such as Maven, to require 1.7. Who are we
> > accomodating by the current policy, or even the 1.6 plan?
> >
> > Meanwhile, it seems to me that we don't need a complex system of
> > releases. There will be no new 3.0.x releases except for some sort of
> > exceptional event. If we simply open up everything except the 3.0.x
> > branch of the core to 1.6 or 1.7, then the worst that happens is, in
> > the event of a security issue out in a component or a plugin, someone
> > has to make a branch from the last 1.5-compatible release to make the
> > fix.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Milos Kleint <mk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> +1.
> >>
> >> jdk 1.6 is EOL-ed for some time (Feb 2013) already and even 1.7 will be
> >> EOL-ed in April 2015..
> >>
> >> I would suggest moving straight to 1.7 but I guess that's been already
> >> discussed.
> >>
> >> Milos
> >>
> >> On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 7:54 AM, Robert Scholte <rf...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> +1, would also make testing with JDK9 easier, although I've already
> found
> >>> a good solution for that.
> >>>
> >>> Robert
> >>>
> >>> Op Wed, 24 Dec 2014 14:20:06 +0100 schreef Kristian Rosenvold <
> >>> krosenvold@apache.org>:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>  Oops. Snappy contains 1.6 java bytecode, which breaks the build on
> maven
> >>>>> plugins. We need to upgrade to 1.6; I'm taking this to the mailing
> list :)
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Last time discussed this we established a consensus to establish 3.0.5
> >>>> (maybe 3.0.6) as a minimum baseline for the 3.x range of plugins.
> >>>>
> >>>> This 3.0.X has a 1.5 java requirement.  The problem is that *everyone*
> >>>> is moving to 1.6 and it's getting increasingly hard to maintain a 1.5
> >>>> code base. As an example, I have been moving code to apache commons,
> >>>> but we're basically unable to use this effort because commons is now
> >>>> 1.6. alternately I need to backport the code in a
> >>>> "source-level-shading", but these things are getting silly.
> >>>>
> >>>> I propose the following:
> >>>>
> >>>> Make the 3.x line of plugins java 1.6+ only.
> >>>> Release all shared utilities in 1.6 versions in the 3.x version range.
> >>>> 3.0.X maven versions stay "forever" on the 2.x line of plugins and jdk
> >>>> 1.5.
> >>>> The most recent core version moves defaults to the 3.x range of
> plugins.
> >>>> The parent poms migrate to 3.x range some time in the near future.
> >>>>
> >>>> Keeping 3.0.x fixes to a minuimum (and "critical" stuff) only, will
> >>>> ensure that we can still stay 1.5 compatible here.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Kristian
> >>>>
> >>>> 2014-12-24 13:52 GMT+01:00 Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I don't have access to push a plexus-archiver release, could you
> >>>>> please do the honors.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Also, looks like my splitting job left some work behind in terms of
> >>>>> the parent pom.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> 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
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
>
>


-- 

--
+==============================+
| Bästa hälsningar,
| [sw. "Best regards"]
|
| Lennart Jörelid
| EAI Architect & Integrator
|
| jGuru Europe AB
| Mölnlycke - Kista
|
| Email: lj@jguru.se
| URL:   www.jguru.se
| Phone
| (skype):    jgurueurope
| (intl):     +46 708 507 603
| (domestic): 0708 - 507 603
+==============================+

Re: Re: [DISCUSS] Move everything to 1.6, take 2 (was: Re: I can't make a release ...)

[Kristian Rosenvold <kr...@gmail.com>]

It appears that IBM JDK6 is EOL september next year. People move at
different speeds :)

Kristian



2014-12-25 6:25 GMT+01:00 Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>:
> +1
>
> Gary
>
> <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com> </div><div>Date:12/24/2014  17:08  (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: Maven Developers List <de...@maven.apache.org> </div><div>Cc:  </div><div>Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Move everything to 1.6, take 2 (was: Re: I can't make a
>   release ...) </div><div>
> </div>Here's what I don't understand. I can see why people need to keep
> building apps that run on antediluvian version. I can't see why it's
> such a problem for a tool, such as Maven, to require 1.7. Who are we
> accomodating by the current policy, or even the 1.6 plan?
>
> Meanwhile, it seems to me that we don't need a complex system of
> releases. There will be no new 3.0.x releases except for some sort of
> exceptional event. If we simply open up everything except the 3.0.x
> branch of the core to 1.6 or 1.7, then the worst that happens is, in
> the event of a security issue out in a component or a plugin, someone
> has to make a branch from the last 1.5-compatible release to make the
> fix.
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Milos Kleint <mk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> +1.
>>
>> jdk 1.6 is EOL-ed for some time (Feb 2013) already and even 1.7 will be
>> EOL-ed in April 2015..
>>
>> I would suggest moving straight to 1.7 but I guess that's been already
>> discussed.
>>
>> Milos
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 7:54 AM, Robert Scholte <rf...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> +1, would also make testing with JDK9 easier, although I've already found
>>> a good solution for that.
>>>
>>> Robert
>>>
>>> Op Wed, 24 Dec 2014 14:20:06 +0100 schreef Kristian Rosenvold <
>>> krosenvold@apache.org>:
>>>
>>>
>>>  Oops. Snappy contains 1.6 java bytecode, which breaks the build on maven
>>>>> plugins. We need to upgrade to 1.6; I'm taking this to the mailing list :)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Last time discussed this we established a consensus to establish 3.0.5
>>>> (maybe 3.0.6) as a minimum baseline for the 3.x range of plugins.
>>>>
>>>> This 3.0.X has a 1.5 java requirement.  The problem is that *everyone*
>>>> is moving to 1.6 and it's getting increasingly hard to maintain a 1.5
>>>> code base. As an example, I have been moving code to apache commons,
>>>> but we're basically unable to use this effort because commons is now
>>>> 1.6. alternately I need to backport the code in a
>>>> "source-level-shading", but these things are getting silly.
>>>>
>>>> I propose the following:
>>>>
>>>> Make the 3.x line of plugins java 1.6+ only.
>>>> Release all shared utilities in 1.6 versions in the 3.x version range.
>>>> 3.0.X maven versions stay "forever" on the 2.x line of plugins and jdk
>>>> 1.5.
>>>> The most recent core version moves defaults to the 3.x range of plugins.
>>>> The parent poms migrate to 3.x range some time in the near future.
>>>>
>>>> Keeping 3.0.x fixes to a minuimum (and "critical" stuff) only, will
>>>> ensure that we can still stay 1.5 compatible here.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Kristian
>>>>
>>>> 2014-12-24 13:52 GMT+01:00 Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> I don't have access to push a plexus-archiver release, could you
>>>>> please do the honors.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, looks like my splitting job left some work behind in terms of
>>>>> the parent pom.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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