I'm at a very small startup, and we still haven't migrated past Java 11,
simply because there were some bugs in some libraries we used with 17, and
we only have one and a half people working on the backend. We're planning
to leapfrog to 25 when it's released, so we need *support* for
compiling/runn
I also like the idea of going with 17.
Of course, we don't yet really know when Groovy will be released, but it
sounds like a safe version to base it on, without cutting with users who
may not have migrated beyond 17.
*Guillaume Laforge*
Apache Groovy committer
Developer Advocate @ Google Cloud
Sounds doable, considering that Maven 4 will also use Java 17.
They have long discussed whether jumping to 21 should be the case as they
want to support the last 2 LTS. With Java 25 coming closer (next month)
there's a group pushing for jumping to 21.
In our case I think staying with 17 is OK.
Ch
+1 for JDK 17 as minimum version.
Some tools we are using do not support JDK 17 for now, e.g. JBoss bridge,
jarjar, etc. Maybe we have to find alternatives or maintain them by ourselves.
Apart from new features and bugfix, performance improvement should gain more
concerns. Our CI does not trig
I should have also mentioned, I haven't updated all the CI infrastructure
as yet to know about the new branch. Any PRs to help are most welcome.
Cheers, Paul.
On Sun, Aug 24, 2025 at 8:43 PM Paul King wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> Now that 5 is out, I created a GROOVY_5_0_X branch, and master has be
Hi folks,
Now that 5 is out, I created a GROOVY_5_0_X branch, and master has become
Groovy 6.
We should discuss a minimum JDK version we plan to support for Groovy 6.
My current thinking is that since we are typically very conservative with
the minimum version, we should bump to JDK17. I am hopi
