How bout starting to fail if lang level is not explicitly set and _remove_ defaults?
Am sick of discussions in present about something to happen in future future (when thing is released) to fit something EOLd in past :) Ie. For the stuck people: Use current/older versions of tooling, if you are stuck with old JVM: just accept you are stuck with tooling too then... On Sat, Nov 7, 2015, 08:56 Hervé BOUTEMY <[email protected]> wrote: > since it's a good practice to define java version explicitely, to avoid any > misunderstanding, I'm not sure changing default value is really something > important: what's important it to know that it costs only 2 properties (and > eventually merge them) > > notice that if we change default value, I want to see a table in the plugin > documentation showing which version of the plugin has which default java > version > > because the immense benefit I see currently is that it's always the same > > Regards, > > Hervé > > Le samedi 7 novembre 2015 08:28:51 Anders Hammar a écrit : > > Just to clarify, it's Oracle's JDK 1.7 that is EOL. IBM still supports > > their Java 6 and 7 level JDKs. > > > > Moving to a 1.7 default is still ok I think. However, if we think that > most > > people will still need to configure 1.8 (or 1.9 soon) I don't see the > point > > of doing this as it does introduce a level of incompatibility for those > > still using Java 6 or earlier. The default could then stay at 1.5. > > > > /Anders > > > > On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 10:30 PM, Karl Heinz Marbaise <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > -1 to 1.8 > > > +1 to 1.7 > > > > > > so we already jump over 1.6 as default which is absolutely ok... > > > > > > Kind regards > > > Karl Heinz Marbaise > > > > > > On 11/6/15 10:17 PM, Christopher wrote: > > >> +1 to at least 1.7 > > >> > > >> However, since 1.7 is EOL, I do think it also makes sense to default > > >> to 1.8, since it's the earliest version still getting public security > > >> updates, and therefore it's reasonable that most people should be > > >> using that version if possible. It's a trivial matter to configure the > > >> plugin for an earlier version if the software needs to be built to > > >> support a system that's not updated. These systems can (and probably > > >> already are) using older versions of this plugin anyway, so changing > > >> the default in newer versions isn't likely to affect them. > > >> > > >> But, at the very least, 1.7 is a big +1, incremental improvement to > the > > >> default. > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Christopher L Tubbs II > > >> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii > > >> > > >> > > >> On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> > > >> > > >> wrote: > > >>> +1 for 1.7. > > >>> > > >>> Gary > > >>> > > >>> On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 4:56 AM, Attila-Mihály Balázs < > [email protected] > > >>> > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Hello, > > >>> > > >>>> Given that we're almost in 2015, what do people think about updating > > >>>> the > > >>>> default source / target for maven-compiler-plugin to 1.8? (And also > on > > >>>> the > > >>>> site: > > >>>> > > >>>> > https://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-compiler-plugin/examples/set-com > > >>>> piler-source-and-target.html ). > > >>>> > > >>>> If there is interest, I'm happy to submit a patch! > > >>>> > > >>>> Cheers, > > >>>> Attila Balazs (Grey Panther) > > >>>> > > >>>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > >>> > > >>> -- > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
