Java 7 is not EOL: it's not free Oracle updates
if you look at slide 16 of our slides from ApacheCON [1], you'll see that
Oracle has even longer support period for Java versions than IBM: the only
difference is on the free period, that is more limited over time = nowadays
only strict 3 years
T
from source code point of view, you don't need to change anything to compile
with JDK 8, true
But what we showed with Arnaud in our ApacheCON demo (sorry to tell a lot
about it, but that was the topic...), JDK 8 compiler may introduce Java 8 API
references into bytecode from source that don't h
from a communication point of view, this one makes sense
Regards,
Hervé
Le mardi 1 décembre 2015 11:52:14 Mark Derricutt a écrit :
> On 1 Dec 2015, at 11:44, Stephen Connolly wrote:
> > In my view there are some advantages to using the 4.0.x version number as
> > a
> > Java 8 bump... namely that
Java 7 is not EOL: it's not free Oracle updates
if you look at slide 16 of our slides from ApacheCON [1], you'll see that
Oracle has even longer support period for Java versions than IBM: the only
difference is on the free period, that is more limited over time = nowadays
only strict 3 years
T
The Apache Maven team is pleased to announce the release of the
Apache Maven Shared Component: Maven Common Artifact Filters Version 3.0.0.
http://maven.apache.org/shared/maven-common-artifact-filters/
A collection of ready-made filters to control inclusion/exclusion of artifacts
during depende
GitHub user seanf opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven-surefire/pull/108
[SUREFIRE-1202] Allow rerunFailingTestsCount, skipAfterFailureCount tâ¦
â¦ogether
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://github.com/seanf/m
Hi,
The vote has passed with the following result:
+1 : Karl Heinz Marbaise, Robert Scholte, Michael Osipov
PMC quorum: reached
I will promote the artifacts to the central repo.
Kind regards
Karl Heinz Marbaise
-
To unsubscr
Am 2015-11-28 um 16:16 schrieb Karl Heinz Marbaise:
Hi,
We solved 9 issues:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12317922&version=12331499
There are several issue open:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20MSHARED%20AND%20status%20%3D%20Open%20
+1
Op Sat, 28 Nov 2015 16:16:59 +0100 schreef Karl Heinz Marbaise
:
Hi,
We solved 9 issues:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12317922&version=12331499
There are several issue open:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20MSHARED%20AND%20st
Hi,
i need at least two more PMC's VOTE's.
Kind regards
Karl Heinz Marbaise
On 11/28/15 4:16 PM, Karl Heinz Marbaise wrote:
Hi,
We solved 9 issues:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12317922&version=12331499
There are several issue open:
https://issues.apache.o
GitHub user gyrfalcon opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven-plugins/pull/71
[MPMD-186] Fix Windows-Specific Constants
Fixed a defect that caused certain PMD Violations to not be excluded
correctly on non-Windows computers.
See https://issues.apache.org/j
Github user peterlynch closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/maven-plugins/pull/57
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the featu
GitHub user peterlynch opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven-plugins/pull/70
MJAVADOC-431 allow maven descriptor to javadoc jar
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://github.com/sonatype/maven-plugins
MJAVADOC-431
My 2c:
Our shop has all of the infrastructure on Ubuntu (for better or worse) and
no LTS Ubuntu version exists with Java 8.
So for now we (and anyone else using Ubuntu) are stuck with a few options:
1) stay with 12.04/14.04 and J7
2) backport J8 to 14.04 and/or use a PPA
3) use a non-LTS stable
On 1 Dec 2015, at 20:10, Kristian Rosenvold wrote:
> 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.
Minor or patch? i.e 3.3.9 is current,
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 ver
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
@Stephen
Nice to have Lambda Expressions.
@all
Question.. Are we all open for reworking Java code to use Lambda
expressions and do we have spare time?
I am open for that but there are few pitfalls with Java8.
1. people may still use Java 6 or 7.
2. AFAIK Java 8 compiler involves Java 8 imports eve
18 matches
Mail list logo
