Piggybacking on what Dave said, Plumbr's latest stats on JDK usage as their stats collection measure it:
https://plumbr.eu/blog/java/java-version-and-vendor-data-analyzed-2016-edition Hank On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 8:57 AM, Dave Brosius <dbros...@mebigfatguy.com> wrote: > People stuck on Java 6, for whatever inane reason, are in a very > restrictive use case, and as such are not likely doing 'progressive' things > like upgrading 3rdparty jars. I just don't see the point of trying to > support some of the new release's code base on java 6, and others on java > 7. The extra management that's required is not worth the 2 people who want > a new version of commons-io for java 6. We are talking about an end of life > date coming up on 4 years. > > > Just upgrade the whole thing to 7. > > -dave > > > On 04/26/2016 08:41 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > >> Le 26/04/2016 14:29, sebb a écrit : >> >> How can we say that the source code is Java 6 compatible if it cannot >>> be compiled with Java 6? >>> >> It's Java 6 compatible at runtime, not at build time. We can say that >> because: >> - the project is configured to generate Java 6 compatible bytecode >> - 99% of the code doesn't use Java 7 APIs >> >> The Java 6 compatibility stops if the new utils classes are used. >> >> >> The ASF releases source. >>> >> Yes, and we release source that builds with Java 7 and runs with Java 6. >> >> Emmanuel Bourg >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> >> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > >
