> The raw numbers are a more reasonable picture. Elliotte, this is just the begin of maven 4, and maven 4.x is not just for current projects, but for projects in the next several years.(and I guess nobody here wanna increasing jdk major version during a same maven major version?) So if we agree that projects in future be more likely for higher jdk versions, I think the normalization somehow reasonable...Just IMO
Elliotte Rusty Harold <elh...@ibiblio.org> 于2024年2月22日周四 21:23写道： > This is all very interesting data for reasons that go well beyond Maven. > Thanks! > > My personal takeaway is that JDK 8 is a much bigger part of the market > than I would have guessed and Java 11 and Java 7 are both much less. > It looks to me like the Java world is dividing into two camps: The > "risk averse, stay with what works and what we know" camp on Java 8 > and the Bleeding Edge camp on the latest LTS release. > > It's possible that's not what's really happening. Java 9 really broke > compatibility and caused a lot of pain for folks, so it might just be > a split between devs who were burned by Java 9+ and devs who weren't. > > Either way, we started with only the last 30 days of data so I don't > think the normalization is reasonable. The lifespan of Java 8, 11, and > 17 are all years before this data was taken so it's not like those > clients couldn't have moved to Java 17 for some part of the period. > The raw numbers are a more reasonable picture. I do not agree that the > weighted pie shows what's dead and what's sliding out. > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 4:17 AM Tamás Cservenák <ta...@cservenak.net> > wrote: > > > > For start I "normalized" the Java strings to a form like "Java 8" or > "Java > > 17". This resulted in pretty much similar results as Romain PDF (Azul > > report). > > > > But then realized, we should consider this: Not every LTS existed at the > > same time span (and we discuss the future here, not the past). Here is > some > > history I collected: > > > > - Java 8: Covers strings like "Java 1.8.0-25" (2014) to "Java 1.8.0-401" > > (2024), that is 10 year span. > > - Java 11: Covers strings like "Java 11-ea" (2018) to "Java 11.0.22" > > (2024), that is a 6 year span. > > - Java 17: Covers strings like "Java 17-ea" (2021) to "Java 17.0.10" > > (2024), that is a 3 year span. > > - Java 21: Covers strings like "Java 21-ea" (2023) to "Java 21.0.2" > (2024), > > that is 1 year span. > > > > So, "normalized" and "weighted" (by lifespan) results are these: > > https://gist.github.com/cstamas/d2e5560f24ebe6a667834aa1f44d6fc1 > > > > Weighted pie immediately shows which Java versions are "dead" (are > present, > > but are "sliding out") and which ones are "alive and kicking" (and > adoption > > is quite high). > > > > --- > > > > Refs: > > - https://www.java.com/releases/ > > - https://openjdk.org/projects/jdk/11/ > > - https://openjdk.org/projects/jdk/17/ > > - https://openjdk.org/projects/jdk/21/ > > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 8:50 AM Tamás Cservenák <ta...@cservenak.net> > wrote: > > > > > Howdy, > > > > > > Maven UA is created like this: > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/maven/blob/master/maven-core/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/internal/aether/DefaultRepositorySystemSessionFactory.java#L555 > > > > > > I was hoping also for a list of "Apache Maven ..." lines with > occurrence > > > count. > > > > > > Now am unsure, for example if any other tool would use "Java X" string > in > > > its own UA, is that collected here? > > > > > > But let's cook with what we have :) > > > > > > T > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2024, 08:03 Mateusz Gajewski < > > > mateusz.gajew...@starburstdata.com> wrote: > > > > > >> Do you have maven version and java version at the same time report? I > > >> wonder if old maven is used with old JDK :) > > >> > > >> On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 23:23 Brian Fox <bri...@infinity.nu> wrote: > > >> > > >> > Hi everyone. I haven't caught up on this thread but Tamas pinged me > to > > >> get > > >> > some usage data from Central. Attached are the Maven versions and > JDK > > >> > Version counts as reported by User Agent by distinct IP for the > last 30 > > >> > days: > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 4:15 PM Hunter C Payne > > >> > <hunterpayne2...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote: > > >> > > > >> >> I also want to stress that we care about what maven supports far > more > > >> >> than what it requires to build. If it needs JDK 17 to build but > the > > >> jars > > >> >> are compliant with Java 8, that's fine with me. > > >> >> > > >> >> Hunter > > >> >> > > >> >> On Wednesday, February 21, 2024 at 12:47:33 PM PST, Romain > > >> >> Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> > > >> >> Hmm, not sure im ready for a 200M vanilla build tool even if it > would > > >> >> have > > >> >> been ok legally... > > >> >> > > >> >> Le mer. 21 févr. 2024 à 21:41, Hunter C Payne > > >> >> <hunterpayne2...@yahoo.com.invalid> a écrit : > > >> >> > > >> >> > I might be wrong but I understood that shipping the JRE/JVM > > >> required a > > >> >> > license and this is why most people don't ship with a JVM > bundled. > > >> But > > >> >> > perhaps that has changed since the Oracle v Google/Alphabet > trial. > > >> >> > Hunter > > >> >> > > > >> >> > On Wednesday, February 21, 2024 at 12:00:54 PM PST, Benjamin > > >> Marwell > > >> >> < > > >> >> > bmarw...@apache.org> wrote: > > >> >> > > > >> >> > FWIW, bazel changed its runtime requirement to Java 21. > > >> >> > But they are shipping their own Java Runtime, so their users > won't > > >> >> notice. > > >> >> > [1] > > >> >> > > > >> >> > I think they are the first build tool to do that. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > I say this as a FYI fact only, not implying anything. > > >> >> > Make of it what you want. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > - Ben > > >> >> > > > >> >> > Am Di., 20. Feb. 2024 um 21:50 Uhr schrieb Tamás Cservenák > > >> >> > <ta...@cservenak.net>: > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > Howdy, > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > I intentionally used "Maven" here, and not "Maven 4" as I am > sure > > >> the > > >> >> > > majority of Maven users do not run Maven on the same Java > version > > >> they > > >> >> > > target with their build. We do not do that either. > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > Some snippets from Herve (who is the ONLY one doing > reproducible > > >> >> checks, > > >> >> > > kudos for that) votes: > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > Sun, Feb 18, 2024, 9:38 AM > > >> >> > > [VOTE] Release Apache Maven Shade Plugin version 3.5.2 > > >> >> > > Reproducible Build ok: reference build done with JDK 11 on *nix > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > Wed, Jan 31, 2024, 5:06 AM > > >> >> > > [VOTE] Release Apache Maven JLink Plugin version 3.2.0 > > >> >> > > Reproducible Builds ok: reference build done on *nix with JDK > 21 > > >> and > > >> >> > umask > > >> >> > > 022 > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > Mon, Jan 8, 2024, 8:29 AM > > >> >> > > [VOTE] Release Maven Plugin Tools version 3.11.0 > > >> >> > > Reproducible Builds ok: reference build done with JDK 8 on > Windows > > >> >> with > > >> >> > > umask > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > Mon, Dec 18, 2023, 8:59 AM > > >> >> > > [VOTE] Release Apache Maven Compiler Plugin version 3.12.0 > > >> >> > > Reproducible Builds ok: reference build done on *nix with JDK > 21 > > >> and > > >> >> > umask > > >> >> > > 022 > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > Mon, Dec 18, 2023, 8:59 AM > > >> >> > > [VOTE] Release Apache Maven Compiler Plugin version 3.12.0 > > >> >> > > Reproducible Builds ok: reference build done on *nix with JDK > 21 > > >> and > > >> >> > umask > > >> >> > > 022 > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > Wed, Nov 29, 2023, 8:16 AM > > >> >> > > [VOTE] Apache Maven Build Cache Extension 1.1.0 > > >> >> > > Reproducible Build ok: reference build done on *nix with JDK 11 > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > Sun, Nov 19, 2023, 5:17 PM > > >> >> > > [VOTE] Release Maven Resolver 1.9.17 > > >> >> > > Reproducible Build ok: reference build done with JDK 21 on *nix > > >> with > > >> >> > umask > > >> >> > > 022 > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > Sat, Oct 21, 2023, 4:34 PM > > >> >> > > VOTE] Apache Maven 4.0.0-alpha-8 release > > >> >> > > Reproducible Build ok: reference build done with JDK 21 on *nix > > >> with > > >> >> > umask > > >> >> > > 022 > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > Mon, Oct 2, 2023, 9:11 AM > > >> >> > > [VOTE] Release Apache Maven 3.9.5 > > >> >> > > Reproducible not fully ok: reference build done with JDK 17 on > *nix > > >> >> and > > >> >> > > umask 022 > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > ==== > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > This CLEARLY shows the tendency: > > >> >> > > - Michael does releases on Java 8 (on windows!), he is a known > > >> >> "aligner" > > >> >> > > and windows person :) > > >> >> > > - Olivier used the "minimum" required Java version (for build > > >> cache). > > >> >> > > - Unsure why Herve used Java 11 for the Shade plugin... I > mean, he > > >> >> could > > >> >> > > use 21 but also 8, but he shot for 11 that was EOL at the > moment of > > >> >> > release. > > >> >> > > - The rest is 21. > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > ==== > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > So, the question for those refusing anything other than Java 8 > to > > >> >> _run_ > > >> >> > > Maven (or to revert: for those refusing to run Maven on "latest > > >> LTS", > > >> >> > that > > >> >> > > is currently 21): > > >> >> > > WHY? > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > Thanks > > >> >> > > T > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > > >> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > > >> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > >> > > > > > > > -- > 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 > >
