Yeah Karl, I think you're right :) Things aren't always that easy so we tend to err in favor of being conservative, which I think is ok. Personally I think all java versions < 1.8 are a drag right now. So I think we call a straight vote for 1.6 for everything. Although not very ambitious, it moves us one step forward. In another 6 months we do 1 more step forwards :)
We'll keep this thread open until monday and then call a vote. Kristian 2014-09-27 20:56 GMT+02:00 Karl Heinz Marbaise <[email protected]>: > Hi Kristian, > >> Karl; I think you are mixing concerns somewhat -making things a little >> >> more complex than they need to be. > > > I think it is not that simple... > >> >> I would propose that most people using 2.2.1 are not doing so due to >> the java version, > >> but simply because they have not ported their build >> >> to 3.X due to a bag of different constraints, java version being only >> one of them. > > > some people do and some don't...but this is an other story.... > >> >> So most users would be able to run 2.2.1 with jdk 1.6. And they can >> still run 2.2.1 with jdk 1.5, they'll just be missing >> the upgrades. > > > I'm with you..... > >> This is the "cost" of running old software, and the >> >> industry as a whole is making running legacy versions >> cumbersome/costly. > > > really true...But the problem is that migration takes time/money...... > >> >> But I think coupling java version -> maven version like you're doing >> is basically flawed; for most users this is not about java versions. > > > It's a point of view...as i mentioned...consistency... > > You are right that i'm coupling this...if it's flawed...it depends... > > The java versions are the most cases where an update takes much longer than > you think...i have customers which are running on Java 1.5 and Java 1.6 (IBM > based as Anders...1.6 +1...)... > > I have written down my thoughts....but of course we can go a different > way...i just wanted to give my thought and to reconsider things like > this...for a further decision... > > 1.6 might be a good alternative...to go with... > > > >> >> Kristian >> >> >> 2014-09-27 20:01 GMT+02:00 Karl Heinz Marbaise <[email protected]>: >>> >>> Hi Kristian, >>> >>> On 9/27/14 7:23 PM, Kristian Rosenvold wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> We moved core to 1.6 some time ago. >>> >>> >>> >>> As far as i know starting with Maven 3.2.1...was the first one... >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Time to move everything else as well ? >>> >>> >>> >>> We have at the moment a large number of plugins which have minimum Maven >>> 2.2.1 (JDK 1.5)...and few are currently at Maven 2.0.6 (that's only for >>> a >>> limited amount of time) >>> >>> The next round should be to lift up to Maven 3.0.5 at minimum which >>> implies >>> to left Maven 2 finally behind..... >>> >>> Making it visible to people by using 3.X versions for the plugins or >>> something similar... >>> >>> ...afterwards i see the next round to lift up to Maven 3.1.1... >>> and after that i see the next lift up to Maven 3.2.1 which implies Java >>> 1.6...and so on.... >>> >>> It's a longer way...which takes time... >>> >>>> >>>> Kristian (Who's ready to say "1.7" but we stop by 1.6 first :) >>>> >>> >>> If we go the above path it's of course longer but more consistence from >>> the >>> user point of view...using Maven 3.0.5 which works with Java 1.5 ...and >>> the >>> plugins as well...etc... >>> >>> Of course from the technical point of view it's not that good ;-(... >>> >>> So from my site i would vote with +0 ... >>> > > Kind regards > Karl-Heinz Marbaise > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
