That sounds rather reasonable.
> On Jan 28, 2016, at 11:13 AM, Claus Ibsen <claus.ib...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 3:48 PM, 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. >> > > Yeah that was also my first thought. > > > I would like to keep Camel 2.17 as-is on Java 1.7. Then if 2.18 is > Java 1.8+ then its much easier to remember as the numbers are aligned. > > Camel 2.17 = Java 1.7 > Camel 2.18 = Java 1.8 > > We can always release Camel 2.17 sooner, its been a while since 2.16, > so maybe aim for a release in next month? > > A reason to keep it on 1.7 is also it would otherwise throw some Camel > end users under the bus anticipating they can use it on Java 1.7. Then > we can announce Camel 2.17 would be the last release with Java 1.7 - > even ahead of time. > > > > > > > >> 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 >>> >>> > > > > -- > Claus Ibsen > ----------------- > http://davsclaus.com @davsclaus > Camel in Action 2: https://www.manning.com/ibsen2
