+1 for removing everything marked deprecated, upgrading to Java 8, and calling that version 3.0 then.
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 2:23 PM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote: > THAT said, I would be OK with going through all the code, removing all the > stuff marked deprecated, update to JDK8, and call it 3.0. :-) It’s just a > version number. We can always do a 4.0 if needed/wanted. > > Dan > > > >> On Jan 29, 2016, at 8:21 AM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Jan 29, 2016, at 3:21 AM, Christian Müller <christian.muel...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Yes, it's a minor release. And regarding to [1]: >>> >>> MINOR version when you add functionality in a backwards-compatible manner >>> >>> And that's not the case, if you have to upgrade your JRE. >> >> How is it not backwards compatible? All of your source that you used with >> Camel 2.16 should compile and run fine with 2.18. You need to update your >> JDK, but the source and API’s and everything are still completely >> compatible. From an API standpoint, compatible. And the SemVer thing is >> all about the API’s. >> >> >> But like was already said, I don’t think we’ve EVER done a Camel release >> that didn’t upgrade a dependency in an underlying library that wasn’t >> compatible. We’ve dropped support for versions of things like jetty and >> older versions of sl4fj and older versions of Karaf and such as well. >> >> Dan >> >> >> >>> >>> [1] http://semver.org/ >>> >>> 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 Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 1:31 AM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >> >> -- >> Daniel Kulp >> dk...@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog >> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com > > -- > Daniel Kulp > dk...@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog > Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com >
