Using 1.7 for the next release and then 1.8 for the following release makes sense to me.
On 18 May 2017 at 05:58, J Pai <jai.forums2...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 > > -Jaikiran > On 18-May-2017, at 4:26 PM, Jan Matèrne (jhm) <apa...@materne.de> wrote: > > I would favour 1.7 as it's the newest before the major update to Java8. > Having a 1.7 in the target environment should not been so restrictive ... > > Jan > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > > Von: Paul King [mailto:pa...@asert.com.au] > > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 18. Mai 2017 11:27 > > An: Ant Developers List > > Betreff: Re: Minimum Java runtime version for proposed upcoming Ivy > > release > > > > The current version of Groovy has 1.6 as the minimum but is our > > maintenance stream. > > The upcoming next version will require 1.7 and versions with 1.8 as the > > minimum are not too far away. > > > > Ant 1.9.x is still on Java5 but Ant 1.10.x requires Java 8. > > > > I don't think Gradle uses any Ivy classes any more. > > > > I'd recommend 1.7 since most active projects will be releasing on > > 1.7/1.8 and then after a release, if all goes well activity-wise, I'd > > then bump the Ivy version and target 8. > > > > Cheers, Paul. > > > > > > On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 7:14 PM, Nicolas Lalevée > > <nicolas.lale...@hibnet.org > >> wrote: > > > >> I think that upgrading the requirement on the JDK is a good idea, > >> because at least us, the maintainers, need at some point to be able > > to > >> test it if there is an issue with that minimum JDK. > >> > >> One thing to consider is which JDK is being required in the > >> environment Ivy is being used: Ant, Gradle, SBT, Eclipse, Intellij… > > We > >> shouldn’t require too high. > >> > >> Nicolas > >> > >>> Le 18 mai 2017 à 10:58, J Pai <jai.forums2...@gmail.com> a écrit : > >>> > >>> Now that the plan seems to be to release 2.5.x of Ivy, would it be > >>> fine > >> if we mandate the _minimum_ Java runtime version to be something > >> higher than Java 5 that’s currently supported for 2.4.x > >> http://ant.apache.org/ivy/history/latest- > > milestone/compatibility.html. > >>> > >>> Given that Java 6 itself has long been EOLed, I’m not sure whether > >>> we > >> should consider that as minimum supported version or something > > higher. > >> Any thoughts? > >>> > >>> Things will be a bit more easy to develop and test once we finalize > >>> on > >> the Java version. > >>> > >>> -Jaikiran > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > - > >>> - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ant.apache.org For > >>> additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ant.apache.org > >>> > >> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ant.apache.org For additional > >> commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ant.apache.org > >> > >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ant.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ant.apache.org > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ant.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ant.apache.org > > -- Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
