I am in favor of an LTS-1 policy. It allows us to adopt (somewhat) recent additions to the language while still supporting some older environments. Given that with the new release roadmap <https://www.oracle.com/java/technologies/java-se-support-roadmap.html> we will see a new LTS release every two years, an LTS-2 policy may make more sense while still allowing use of relatively recent language features. This would mean moving to Java 11 for NB 20 after the release of Java 21 in September.
Rangi > On Mar 24, 2023, at 3:10 PM, Neil C Smith <neilcsm...@apache.org> wrote: > > On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 at 08:51, Michael Bien <mbie...@gmail.com> wrote: >> With every new JDK release it will become more difficult to keep >> supporting JDK 8 as runtime. It also becomes increasingly difficult to >> motivate myself to fix JDK 8 issues in my freetime. If I see PRs which >> fix edge cases in java-version parsing code which could be already >> solved by simply using the JDK 11 API for it, I am just asking myself: >> why are we doing this? It is not one thing which is the problem, its a >> million paper cuts. > > This thread has somewhat split into conversations elsewhere. But if > we're going to save ourselves from the million paper cuts by nailing > the coffin lid shut :-) we should probably move to vote on this soon. > > We're about to hit the branch point for NB18 in a few weeks. I swear > this comes around quicker each time! If we're going to drop all > support for running on JDK 8 in NetBeans 19, then it would be good to > make that decision before NB18 branch and start of NB19 development. > I'd be very happy if anyone else wants to propose a vote(!), but if > nothing starts before week of April 3 I intend to initiate one so we > can get a decision in time. I'd also prefer we did this via lazy > consensus as we've done previously, but I get the feeling that won't > work! > > Personally I'd also like us to link the decision on future JDK support > to this too, so we could be clear to ourselves, platform developers, > and users for how long we intend to commit to supporting particular > JDKs. Various people, including me, have proposed an LTS-1 strategy. > But the implication of that is only committing to supporting build and > run of the IDE and platform on JDK 11 until the middle of 2024. Are > the people not in favour of that in favour of an LTS-2 strategy, or > something else entirely? What are the implications for us of that, > etc.? I know Svata commented elsewhere about following up on this > point - be good to understand the concerns and/or consider how to > address within the capacity we have. > > We could of course separate the two things, if we really need to, but > I'm not sure kicking the can further down the road is a good idea. > > Best wishes, > > Neil > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@netbeans.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@netbeans.apache.org > > For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit: > https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcwiki.apache.org%2Fconfluence%2Fdisplay%2FNETBEANS%2FMailing%2Blists&data=05%7C01%7Crangi.keen%40siemens.com%7Cd7fb02c589424947056408db2c9ba388%7C38ae3bcd95794fd4addab42e1495d55a%7C1%7C0%7C638152819202129031%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=oxsbg4e0O7XutYjPCEklAb7s%2FHThQ1QjREiOq5eOHF0%3D&reserved=0 > > >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
