Based on my experience, I think we (FOSS developers) can create our own momentum by "simply" creating an EOL schedule. I have seen this EOL aspect motivate the move away from Jetty 9 for example. Since Maven 4 is not out, there is nothing to EOL in Maven 3 land unless you want to say that only 3.9.x is maintained and old versions are on an EOL schedule of x.
Gary On Mon, Feb 5, 2024, 1:56 PM Elliotte Rusty Harold <elh...@ibiblio.org> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 12:01 PM Benjamin Marwell <bmarw...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Why 17? 11 is often earlier EOL'd than 8 and 17, so I see absolutely > > no advantage of going to 11: > > > > The advantage of going with 11 instead of 17 is that at least 2 really > big tech companies I could name (and who you can probably guess from > my linked in) have only recently completed their own migration to Java > 11. At least one of those two companies might still employ a PMC > member (though I haven't checked post-layoffs), maybe more than one. > Both have actively supported Maven development over the years, though > that support ebbs and flows depending on corporate priorities. > > I get the impression that folks who haven't worked in such large > mono-repos aren't aware of just how big a multi-year effort it is to > move a repo like that onto a new JDK version. And that's just the VM, > even before you allow devs to change the language level and start > using the new features and libraries. That's just the two really big > mono-repos I have personally worked in. I'm willing to bet that some > other big Java shops are in similar positions. > > Switching back and forth between JDKs for open source development is > doable but an unnecessary hassle. I've done it before, but even > switching from JDK 8 to 11 is an extra paper cut. It kills time every > time spotless fails simply because I'm using Java 8 instead of 11. > > Most importantly, it will be even harder to sell management on the > benefit of spending developer time on Maven 4 development, if it isn't > suitable for that company's own open source projects which, last I > checked, were still on Java 8. (OK, I just spot checked and the first > one I looked at is in fact still compiling for Java *1.7*, probably > because that's where their customers are). > > I'm thinking back to the projects I had to justify to management a few > years and one company back, and it definitely would have been harder > then if I had to tell them what we were contributing would only work > on Java 11 or later. Maybe today I could sell them on Java 11 (or > maybe not, if they aren't paying attention to Maven at all any more) > but Java 17 would be a non-starter. They might prefer to spend their > resources on a build tool they own, or maybe just not spend the dev > hours at all. > > tldr: every uptick in version requirements bleeds that many more > contributors out of the pool. > > -- > Elliotte Rusty Harold > elh...@ibiblio.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > >
