I think it makes sense to default to a supported version, and we can take a manual look at what’s required in updates as new Java versions come out rather than letting random users find out by accident.
> On Dec 5, 2023, at 6:49 AM, Volkan Yazıcı <vol...@yazi.ci> wrote: > > I disagree with having an open-ended compiler baseline requirement due to > > 1. It is not a minor task to bump the compiler version. The Java 17 > upgrade task was on hold already for several months due to its intricacies. > As a matter of fact, you were the one who dropped the ball after the Java > 11 upgrade. (It was a rightful decision and I am glad you did the hard work > of Java 11 upgrade. 🙇) > 2. Fixing the baseline will keep everybody (maintainers, individual > contributors, etc.) on the same page due to no moving parts. Less "Are you > using Java 17?"-kind questions while troubleshooting. > 3. Those who want to test Log4j against new JDKs still can easily: > `-Denforcer.skip` > 4. `.java-version` doesn't support ranges (AFAIK) > 5. I don't find it annoying. On the contrary, several other major > projects adopt this pattern: Spring Boot > > <https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-boot/blob/main/buildSrc/build.gradle#L13>, > JUnit > > <https://github.com/junit-team/junit5/blob/main/gradle/plugins/settings.gradle.kts#L4>, > JCTools <https://github.com/JCTools/JCTools/blob/master/pom.xml#L167>, > Guava <https://github.com/google/guava/blob/master/pom.xml#L113>, etc. > 6. I don't see a compelling use case. > > All that said, I am not strongly opinionated about this and I wouldn't stop > you from replacing `[17,18)` with `[17,)` in `/pom.xml`. > > On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 1:19 PM Piotr P. Karwasz <piotr.karw...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi Volkan, >> >> On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 at 11:50, Volkan Yazıcı <vol...@yazi.ci> wrote: >>> >>> I have just updated `main` to require Java 17 for compiling and to target >>> Java 17. Previously both were Java 11. If you have objections, please >>> discuss in this thread. >> >> I am Ok with bumping the bytecode to Java 17. >> >> Regarding the build requirements I would give by **default** a larger >> spectrum of possible JDKs. >> Right now we only accept JDK 17 in the default Maven profile. A Log4j >> contributor is forced to install JDK 17 for a build to succeed, which >> might be annoying. Therefore it might be better to: >> >> * set the Enforcer plugin to accept >> [minimum_JDK_required_by_Maven_plugins,) >> * set [17,18) **only** in the `release` plugin. >> >> BTW: when we bump BND to 7.x, minimum_JDK_required_by_Maven_plugins will >> be 17. >> >> Piotr >>
