If we compile to Java8, it won't be usable in a Java7 JVM. On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 10:39 AM Raul Kripalani <ra...@apache.org> wrote:
> Good point, James. But after spending over 6 years in 2.x, I think users > might expect a little more from 3.x than just a standard 2.x release + JDK > upgrade. So from the public view standpoint, I'm not so sure. > > Also, JDK8 is backwards compatible with JDK7, so according to Semver a > major version increment is not necessary. > On 28 Jan 2016 14:48, "James Carman" <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote: > > > I would rather us bump the major version number if we're going to start > > requiring users to use Java8. > > > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 9:35 AM Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > For master (targeting 2.17), I see we’re still setup for Java7. > Would > > > it make sense to move to requiring Java8? We can certainly start > taking > > > advantage of the new things in Java8, but there are also dependencies > > (like > > > Jetty) that now require Java8 and more and more of them will be > requiring > > > that. (example: CXF 3.2 will be Java8 only as well) > > > > > > It sometimes makes back merging fixes to 2.16/2.15 tricky if you use > > Java8 > > > features, but that’s going to be a problem eventually anyway. > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > -- > > > Daniel Kulp > > > dk...@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog > > > Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com > > > > > > > > >
