If it were easier to maintain branches against various releases of Java, perhaps this wouldn't be as much of an issue.
Also, philosophically, I'm already at the point where I consider Java 8 to be the "old" version of Java that's considered a bare minimum, and new/existing projects should be running on Java 12 (or 11) even if they're not targeting that source level yet. Hearing about people still stuck with older versions is disheartening. On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 at 14:13, Bruno P. Kinoshita <ki...@apache.org> wrote: > > Indeed. I worked in a bank and in a research company, where in both at least > one department was stuck in an old version for issues with the code base or > environment policies/decisions. > Agree not the best choice, but sometimes developers simply cannot immediately > upgrade jvm. > Some managers may even prefer to pay a vendor (eg oracle) for extra time > support. > B > > Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android > > On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 at 8:10, sebb<seb...@gmail.com> wrote: On Tue, 26 Mar > 2019 at 19:01, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I'd like to know what developers are both stuck in Java 7 (or earlier) > > and also have the liberty to upgrade any of their dependencies > > regardless of compatibility concerns. My thoughts are that being stuck > > in the past for one dependency tends to leak into every other > > dependency for the same underlying reasons. > > There is a big difference between upgrading the JVM and upgrading one > or two dependencies. > > It's much easier to test against a new version of a single dependency > than to test against a new version of Java. > > Changing JVM is akin to asking a business to upgrade from Windows 7 to > Windows 8 just to use an updated version of one application on a > system that has many other apps that rely on Windows 7. > > > On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 at 06:27, Pascal Schumacher > > <pascalschumac...@gmx.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Am 22. März 2019 19:56:29 MEZ schrieb Gary Gregory > > > <garydgreg...@gmail.com>: > > > >On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 2:53 PM sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > >> I see no reason to update to Java 8 unless continuing with Java 7 > > > >> becomes a big hassle. > > > >> > > > >> Why penalise people stuck on Java 7 unnecessarily? > > > >> > > > > > > > >I see it the other way around: Why do we want to handcuff new > > > >development > > > >on a dead platforms? For new contributors, this is a huge turn off. > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > 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 > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
