I think it makes sense to default to a supported version, and we can take a
manual look at what’s required in updates as new Java versions come out rather
than letting random users find out by accident.
> On Dec 5, 2023, at 6:49 AM, Volkan Yazıcı wrote:
>
> I disagree with having an open-ended
I could see us building and running on LTS versions only (17, 21) but not
anything else feels restrictive. Building on Java 21 will also let us avoid
trouble (maybe) with running on 21. IOW, I hope-wish for that GitHub builds
run and test on 17, 21, and 22-EA as a nice-to-have.
Gary
On Tue, Dec
I disagree with having an open-ended compiler baseline requirement due to
1. It is not a minor task to bump the compiler version. The Java 17
upgrade task was on hold already for several months due to its intricacies.
As a matter of fact, you were the one who dropped the ball after the Ja
I'm OK with Java 17 as the runtime minimum.
Gary
On Tue, Dec 5, 2023, 7:19 AM Piotr P. Karwasz
wrote:
> Hi Volkan,
>
> On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 at 11:50, Volkan Yazıcı wrote:
> >
> > I have just updated `main` to require Java 17 for compiling and to target
> > Java 17. Previously both were Java 11.
Hi Volkan,
On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 at 11:50, Volkan Yazıcı wrote:
>
> I have just updated `main` to require Java 17 for compiling and to target
> Java 17. Previously both were Java 11. If you have objections, please
> discuss in this thread.
I am Ok with bumping the bytecode to Java 17.
Regarding th
I have just updated `main` to require Java 17 for compiling and to target
Java 17. Previously both were Java 11. If you have objections, please
discuss in this thread.
On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 10:42 PM Volkan Yazıcı wrote:
> Done. Will port this to `main` next week.
>
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 5:0
