Then next release(after 1.0.0) must be a major release you mean? If there are no potential users looking for JDK 1.6, dropping now should be good idea IMO.
I also remembered that we wanted to mark 1.0.0 release as Alpha right? (just a question) Regards, Uma On 6/14/16, 12:27 AM, "Sun, Dapeng" <dapeng....@intel.com> wrote: >Thank Gary, Benedikt, Marcelo, sebb, James, Jochen, ecki, Ralph and Matt >for all your input. > >How about make a conservative decision: regarding the first >release(1.0.0), we keep the JDK version as 1.6, and we wouldn't support >JDK 1.6 for the releases after 1.0.0. > >Regards >Dapeng > >-----Original Message----- >From: Matt Sicker [mailto:boa...@gmail.com] >Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 6:18 AM >To: Commons Developers List >Subject: Re: [crypto] On Java 6, really? > >I'd imagine that close to 100% of users who are on Java 6 are not >upgrading anything else, either, nor would they be adding in new >dependencies. Every Java 6 project I've come across lately has been in >legacy maintenance mode (just like Java 6 itself). > >On 7 June 2016 at 16:47, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Let's not forget that customers are paying Oracle to get Java 6 updates. >> >> Gary >> On Jun 7, 2016 1:24 PM, "Ralph Goers" <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> >>wrote: >> >> > I really don¹t think the premier & extended support dates should >> > really mean much, except as an indicator of how many users of that >> > version might still exist. Basically, no new features are going to >> > be added to Java >> so I >> > don¹t think we should be targeting new features there either. If >> > there >> is a >> > bug that needs to be fixed it should be possible to do it on a >> > branch of the the release for that version of Java. The web site >> > should clearly indicate which versions of the component support the >> > appropriate Java versions. >> > >> > Ralph >> > >> > > On Jun 7, 2016, at 12:26 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > >> > > I have just checked Oracle support for Java 6. >> > > >> > > The Support Life for Java 6 has been extended to Dec 2018 [1] I >> > > think this means that there are critical systems that cannot yet >> > > be updated to Java 7+. >> > > >> > > This does not mean that we should ensure that all Commons code >> > > still works on Java 6. >> > > But it should be taken into account when evaluating the pros and >> > > cons of requiring a later version. >> > > >> > > [1] >> > > http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/eol-135779.html#extended6 >> > > >> > > On 7 June 2016 at 20:02, Jochen Wiedmann >> > > <jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > >>> Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote on Tue., 7. Juni >> > >>> 2016 >> > >>> >> > >>>> Are we really starting a new component on a dead platform like >> > >>>> Java >> 6? >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> You are, of course, right, that the component is more than >> > >> welcome to use another version. OTOH, given our latest >> > >> experiences: Is this really someting, that we should care for? >> > >> IMO, let the component have, whatever they want. >> > >> >> > >> Jochen >> > >> >> > >> ----------------------------------------------------------------- >> > >> ---- 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 >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> > >> > >> > > > >-- >Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
