We could simply take a vote on this - case like this is exactly what the
voting procedures at Apache were originally designed for. We'd need to vote
on a clearly defined issue, like "do we want to require Java 6 for T5.4 so
we can upgrade dependencies that require Java 6, such as the newer closure
compiler".

Kalle


On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 8:31 AM, Jochen Kemnade
<[email protected]>wrote:

> Any new insights on this one? The current master will still FTBFS on Java
> 5.
>
> Am 02.05.2014 18:18, schrieb Kalle Korhonen:
>
>  On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 12:57 AM, Ulrich Stärk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>  I don't see the benefits in this. As I said earlier, Java 6 and 7 IMO
>>> don't provide enough benefits
>>> to justify the change.
>>>
>>>
>> A newer Java version is required if we want to update the closure
>> compiler.
>>
>> Kalle
>>
>>
>> On 2014-05-01 19:01, Kalle Korhonen wrote:
>>
>>> I agree with Rob. A common sense approach would be to require 1.6 for
>>>>
>>> T5.4
>>>
>>>> and then require 1.8 in a future version.
>>>>
>>>> Kalle
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Robert Zeigler
>>>> <[email protected]>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  Not opposed to an upgrade to Java 8, but not sure 5.4 is the right time
>>>>> for it. 5.4 has been long-enough in coming that I feel it would be
>>>>>
>>>> better
>>>
>>>> to release 5.4, and use 5.5 as the java8 upgrade, possibly with a fairly
>>>>> short release time between 5.4 and 5.5. Basically, 5.5 could be “5.4
>>>>>
>>>> with
>>>
>>>> java 8 compatibility” (and whatever new features (like the httpOnly
>>>>>
>>>> cookie
>>>
>>>> flag ticket you commented on recently) that would need > java 1.5 to
>>>>> support).
>>>>>
>>>>> Robert
>>>>>
>>>>> On May 1, 2014, at 5/111:38 AM , Ulrich Stärk <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>  Historically I have been a strong opponent to Java version upgrades
>>>>>> for
>>>>>>
>>>>> Tapestry because IMO the
>>>>>
>>>>>> disadvantages outweighed the advantages by far.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now that we have lambda expressions, default methods, Nashorn and many
>>>>>>
>>>>> other useful features I'm
>>>>>
>>>>>> leaning towards making a radical break and switch to Java 8.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We should have a formal vote for such a radical change and a
>>>>>> discussion
>>>>>>
>>>>> firstin order to gather
>>>>>
>>>>>> comments and opinions from the community.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Uli
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2014-04-30 12:57, Jochen Kemnade wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am 29.04.2014 21:07, schrieb Jochen Kemnade:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'll downgrade it tomorrow and get myself a Java 1.5 compiler...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which is much harder than I thought it was. I managed to find old
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> rt.jar and jce.jar files and to
>>>>>
>>>>>> make Gradle use them.
>>>>>>> Now I'm getting compile errors, e.g. in VirtualResource:88,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> MacOutputStream:45 and others. Mostly,
>>>>>
>>>>>> it's Java 6 methods being used.
>>>>>>> First of all, do we still want to stick with Java 5 now that Java 8
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> out and even Java 6 is EOL?
>>>>>
>>>>>> Second, I wonder why it builds in Jenkins. What JDK is used there?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jochen
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> ---------
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>
>

Reply via email to