On 6 February 2013 23:18, Olivier Lamy <[email protected]> wrote: > 2013/2/6 Mark Struberg <[email protected]>: > > > > > > What are the big features and possibilities we gain from 1.6? > Honestly I don't see any. > > Build systems are pretty late in the chain. We should still be able to > build on systems which are 2+ years old. > > > > Is there a technical reason to restrict this or is it just that we don't > actively support it anymore (not doing IT, etc)? > Not really. It's just a pain to have 1.5 on a laptop :-). > The issue I have is we don't have animal-sniffer configured. >
Why not fix the issue. > > > > > > As comparison: we still supported 1.4 and older until not that far ago ;) > :-) > That's a periodic discussion we have so I try again. > It would be a different case if some dependencies we want to use were not compatible with 1.5 bytecode, or if there was a compelling feature we wanted in the language. Just upping because we can is not a good enough argument from my PoV. We have the tooling to ensure 1.5 compatibility, we don't have a driver to warrant upping the minimum. If we had a driver like try with resources, or lambda and a good case is made for that driver I would be happy to up to 1.8... But just upping "because we can" is not a good reason. > The main features I'd like to use are more in 1.7. > > > > > > LieGrue, > > strub > > > > > > > >>________________________________ > >> From: Baptiste MATHUS <[email protected]> > >>To: Maven Developers List <[email protected]> > >>Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2013 10:31 PM > >>Subject: Re: EOL of 1.5 as minimum > >> > >>+1, bump to JDK6 minimum for Maven. > >> > >> > >>2013/2/6 Stephen Connolly <[email protected]> > >> > >>> I think we should at least have a minor version bump on core to > >>> co-incide... Though I think calling it maven 4.0 might be better (that > way > >>> we catch up with the model version ;-) > >>> > >>> On Wednesday, 6 February 2013, Olivier Lamy wrote: > >>> > >>> > Hi, > >>> > As we are now in 2013, it's probably time to think about that > (again). > >>> > > >>> > Reading [1], even 1.6 won't be anymore updated after feb 2013. > >>> > > >>> > Can we say we are safe to go to 1.6 as minimum required ? > >>> > > >>> > NOTE: That will probably need a vote. So depending on how the thread > >>> > move, I will start a vote (or not). > >>> > > >>> > Thanks > >>> > -- > >>> > Olivier Lamy > >>> > Talend: http://coders.talend.com > >>> > http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy > >>> > > >>> > [1] http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/eol-135779.html > >>> > > >>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]<javascript:;> > >>> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > <javascript:;> > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Baptiste <Batmat> MATHUS - http://batmat.net > >>> Sauvez un arbre, > >>> Mangez un castor ! nbsp;! > >> > >> > >> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > > -- > Olivier Lamy > Talend: http://coders.talend.com > http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
