2.16 -> 2.17 is not a patch release, it’s a minor release with new features and dependency updates and such.
2.16.1 -> 2.16.2 is a patch release. I would agree no changes in JDK requirements on a patch release. A minor release is different. Dan > On Jan 28, 2016, at 5:52 PM, Christian Müller <christian.muel...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > I'm with James (even we did it otherwise in the past). A patch release > shouldn't require you to upgrade your JRE. > > Camel 2.17 = Java 1.7 > Camel 3.0 = Java 1.8 > > May it forces us to work on Camel 3.0 ;-) > > Best, > Christian > ----------------- > > Software Integration Specialist > > Apache Member > V.P. Apache Camel | Apache Camel PMC Member | Apache Camel committer > Apache Incubator PMC Member > > https://www.linkedin.com/pub/christian-mueller/11/551/642 > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 7:13 PM, 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 >> -- Daniel Kulp dk...@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
