My PoV is that once Java 8 is released we drop support for running on Java 6 (keep support for compiling with a Java 6 JDK via toolchains)
We should be one and one back with regards to the runtime JVM maven requires. But to get there I'd like to see a JDK 6 min release first, gauge how the community responds to that. Also there is the redhat OpenJDK 6 commitment, and IBM are not near EOL on their JDK 6... So that is less clear-cut On Sunday, 5 January 2014, Tamás Cservenák wrote: > As i mentioned in referenced thread, i would really like to see maven at > java7. > > We talk about release to happen in near future, that would be used in a bit > further future by users, but even _today_ there is no other java than 7 > that is not eol-d. For those locked in, there are still 3.0, 3.1 releases > (and 3.2?) > > I know others have other "wishes" for 4.0 but in this case i really see no > rationale to not make this step. > > thanks, > ~t~ (mobile) > On Jan 5, 2014 10:43 AM, "Stephen Connolly" < > [email protected] <javascript:;>> > wrote: > > > On Saturday, 4 January 2014, Jason van Zyl wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jan 4, 2014, at 4:56 PM, Stephen Connolly < > > > [email protected] <javascript:;> <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > > > > > Doing so would make the next version 4.0 and not 3.2 > > > > > > > > I don't mind if we want to do that, but we were supposed to be > pushing > > a > > > > 3.2 out at the start of Oct and I do wonder what the status is there > > > > > > > > > > 3.1.1 was released on September 17th so we're a bit overdue for trying > to > > > keep the quarterly schedule, but I asked to update the source levels > > > because it was after September. I didn't know that implied a release > > right > > > then. But then an email discussion chain ensued and I lost track. > > > > > > If we're going to bump to 4.0 then I will sift through the core and > look > > > for more deprecated code. Might as well do a removal, and bump the > > runtime > > > level to 1.6. > > > > > > > > I guess my PoV is what new features are we adding that make it a 4.0? > > > > I personally think we should cut 3.2 with the 1.6 bump and get that out > > > > For The 4.0 version number I would like to see some new features... > > > > Otoh we could hold off new features for 5.0 with the excuse that we were > > aligning maven's version number with the modelVersion to remove > > confusion.., but that is a card we can only play once > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, 4 January 2014, Jason van Zyl wrote: > > > > > > > >> I'm doing some cleanup in the core in preparation for some > refactoring > > > I'd > > > >> like to propose in the coming months and the deprecated methods in > > > >> MavenSession have been there for over 4 years. I'd like to, at some > > > point > > > >> soon, be able to move the core and plugins to toward being fully > > JSR330 > > > so > > > >> I'd like to start purging references to Plexus. There are lots of > them > > > in > > > >> MavenSession. > > > >> > > > >> If no one has any objections I'd like to remove the deprecated > > > >> constructors and methods from MavenSession. > > > >> > > > >> Thanks, > > > >> > > > >> Jason > > > >> > > > >> ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > >> Jason van Zyl > > > >> Founder, Apache Maven > > > >> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl > > > >> --------------------------------------------------------- > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Sent from my phone > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Jason > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > Jason van Zyl > > > Founder, Apache Maven > > > http://twitter.com/jvanzyl > > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Sent from my phone > > > -- Sent from my phone
