> sure, it would be nice to see those numbers... :) Here we go. The numbers below are for users who have Maven projects. Please note that the same user can report multiple JDKs, so numbers do not add up to 100.
For IntelliJ Ultimate, the Top 5 JDK versions are: 8 - 49.1% 17 - 37.4% 11 - 27.2% 20 - 10.5% 19 - 9.7% For IntelliJ Community, the Top 5 JDK versions are: 17 - 31.8% 8 - 31.8% 11 - 24.6% 20 - 20.1% 19 - 10.8% Let me know if you are interested in other data or have any other questions about Maven integration in IntelliJ IDEA Best regards, -- Nikita Skvortsov Software Developer JetBrains http://www.jetbrains.com The Drive to Develop ср, 31 мая 2023 г. в 14:32, Tamás Cservenák <ta...@cservenak.net>: > Howdy Nikita, > > sure, it would be nice to see those numbers... :) > > Thanks > Tamas > > On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 2:25 PM Nikita Skvortsov > <nikita.skvort...@jetbrains.com.invalid> wrote: > > > > Do we have some download stats (not a poll) - maybe on sdkman or some > jdk > > > vendors side? > > > > Dear Maven team, > > > > Would it help you to make the decision if you have usage statistics of > JDK > > 17 among IntelliJ IDEA Maven users? > > > > -- > > Nikita Skvortsov > > Software Developer > > JetBrains > > http://www.jetbrains.com > > The Drive to Develop > > > > > > ср, 31 мая 2023 г. в 11:43, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>: > > > > > Do we have some download stats (not a poll) - maybe on sdkman or some > jdk > > > vendors side? > > > Recently I saw (with customers I'm working on) the java 17 adoption > being > > > quite large and since people stucked to 3.9 will be covered for java 8 > I > > > think it could be sane to switch *master* if we can validate with > actual > > > figures (with little bias) that java 17 is >= 50% (being said the > forward > > > way is it will only increase). > > > > > > Side note: I'm not sure toolchain workaround is of any help there since > > the > > > main case will likely stay "use the contextual one and I don't have > > others > > > to offer you". > > > > > > So overall, if we can find some convergence that java 17 is getting > > widely > > > adopted I would be to switch now fo rmaven 4 without any toolchain > hack. > > > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > > > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog > > > <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog > > > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github < > > > https://github.com/rmannibucau> | > > > LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book > > > < > > > > > > https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance > > > > > > > > > > > > > Le mer. 31 mai 2023 à 11:21, Michael Osipov <micha...@apache.org> a > > écrit > > > : > > > > > > > > I think with those improvements, requiring JDK 17 for master should > > be > > > > > doable. Any concerns of suggestions ? > > > > > > > > I am against this. There are enough people who cannot move to Java 17 > > for > > > > a plethora of reasons regardless of Toolchains support. We provide a > > low > > > > level tool and it should have a low barrier to use. Maven 4 should be > > > used > > > > as a transitional version to 5 to cut old ties and solve many issues > -- > > > > even if we are in alpha phase now. > > > > I bet many people will stick for 3.9.x or even 3.8.x for the years to > > > come. > > > > > > > > M > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
