I also like the idea of going with 17. Of course, we don't yet really know when Groovy will be released, but it sounds like a safe version to base it on, without cutting with users who may not have migrated beyond 17.
*Guillaume Laforge* Apache Groovy committer Developer Advocate @ Google Cloud <https://cloud.google.com/> - Blog: glaforge.dev - X: @glaforge <http://twitter.com/glaforge> - Bluesky: @glaforge.dev <https://bsky.app/profile/glaforge.dev> - Mastodon: @[email protected] <http://%[email protected]/> Le dim. 24 août 2025, 12:58, Andres Almiray <[email protected]> a écrit : > Sounds doable, considering that Maven 4 will also use Java 17. > > They have long discussed whether jumping to 21 should be the case as they > want to support the last 2 LTS. With Java 25 coming closer (next month) > there's a group pushing for jumping to 21. > In our case I think staying with 17 is OK. > > Cheers, > Andres > > On Sun, Aug 24, 2025 at 12:44 PM Paul King <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Hi folks, >> >> Now that 5 is out, I created a GROOVY_5_0_X branch, and master has become >> Groovy 6. >> >> We should discuss a minimum JDK version we plan to support for Groovy 6. >> >> My current thinking is that since we are typically very conservative with >> the minimum version, we should bump to JDK17. I am hoping Groovy 6 will be >> delivered with a quicker window than Groovy 5, but there hasn't been any >> discussion about features as yet, so it's a little hard to predict. I think >> JDK17 gives us a nice increment where we can make numerous advances, and if >> the release is taking longer than we expected, we can always adjust our >> decision. But, I'm interested in what others think ... >> >> >> >> Cheers, Paul. >> >>
