Hello Maarten, For me the main reason why I initially proposed EOLing 1.9.x branch (and releases) is because creating new fixes for it and then releasing it is becoming cumbersome. Java APIs have moved on from the Java 5 days a long way (even just comparing against Java 8 itself). What that means is we are ending up trying to find ways to solve a particular issue differently for "master" branch and 1.9.x branch. The recent security fix is just one such example. Even verifying the issue and the fix is getting difficult - I couldn't even get a Java 5 to install on my local setup to try a few things. If we do keep releasing 1.9.x I think we will have to keep updating it for similar security fixes, if not regular bug fixes. Based on recent experiences, that's not an easy thing to do from a time and effort perspective. With more than a decade since Java 5 was EOLed, the time and efforts needed to support the few projects that use that version becomes hard to rationalize.
1.9.x has been stable for a long time now and that's a good thing. I think for projects that are reliant on Java 5, they can still use the last released 1.9.15 and continue using it and evaluate any security issues on per use basis. Maybe having officially retired Java 5 support, projects will perhaps start moving to newer Ant 1.10.x releases, but I do understand if they still stick with Java 5 and 1.9.x. -Jaikiran On 21/05/20 4:01 am, Maarten Coene wrote: > Hi Stefan, > > could you explain a bit more why we should EOL the 1.9.x branch? > > Personally, I think it's a mistake to abondon the Java 5 support. > I think there are still projects around targetting java 5, 6 or 7 using Ant > as build tool. > > For instance, one of the reasons we are still using Ant 1.9.x is that we have > some projects that require to run on Java 6. > Upgrading these projects to Java 8 is not yet possible, since some > dependencies are not Java 8 compatible. > I don't know if you tried to run some junit tests on a java 6 jre with an Ant > 1.10.x release, it isn't possible, even in forked mode. > > But maybe you can convince me with some good arguments :-) > > > Maarten > > > > > Op woensdag 20 mei 2020 13:24:12 CEST schreef Stefan Bodewig > <bode...@apache.org>: > > > > > > It looks as if the vote will simply not pass because of a lack of > participation - which is certainly fine. Unless we get more binding > votes, I'll close the vote as failed soon. > > Mayby we should have discussed the motion here before I created the > vote. Therefore I have created this separate thread. If you don't feel > you want to discuss the topic then please just ignore me :-) > > > Stefan > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ant.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ant.apache.org > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ant.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ant.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ant.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ant.apache.org