Hi Tim,
I think jumping to Java 17 would be a bit much for 3.x.
I would vote for a shorter EOL for Tika 2.x
What I’ve seen is that users who are forced to continue using older versions of
Java are generally able to back port changes they need, once support is EOL. So
if there’s a critical bug
We seem to have consensus on Java 11 for 3.x and keep Java 8 for 2.x for
one more year. I've started the branches and started making some changes
in this direction.
Is it worth pushing this modernization further or faster, with either:
a) Jump to Java 17 now and keep Java 8 in 2.x for one more ye
Let's move forth!
dual branches for now: main and branch_2x
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TIKA-4127
On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 9:03 AM Maxim Solodovnik
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> from mobile (sorry for typos ;)
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2023, 11:28 Adam Rauch wrote:
>
>> +1 on requiring Java 11...
Hello,
from mobile (sorry for typos ;)
On Wed, Sep 13, 2023, 11:28 Adam Rauch wrote:
> +1 on requiring Java 11... no problem there.
>
> Can you clarify what exactly "require jakarta" means? Tika will link to
> dependencies that happen use jakarta package names, but will have no
> problem runni
