FWIW, I work for a large company and our business unit just switched to Java 17 after eons on Java 8. I think requiring Java 17 or 21 to run Maven is fine. The existing tooling supports generating Java 8 binaries for those who need it.
Gary On Sun, Feb 4, 2024, 9:01 AM Elliotte Rusty Harold <elh...@ibiblio.org> wrote: > If we're actually voting > > +1 for Java 8 > -1 for Java 17 or any later version. > > I can live with Java 11 if I have to, though I really don't see the > point. Anything past Java 11 ranges from a major hassle to blocker for > corporate developers, including those at big tech companies like Meta > and Google, who are stuck on older versions as a matter of policy and > internal support. > > On Sat, Feb 3, 2024 at 2:17 PM Martin Desruisseaux > <martin.desruisse...@geomatys.com> wrote: > > > > Hello > > > > From the replies in this thread, it seems to me that there is a > > consensus for moving Maven 4 to some Java version after 8. I see: > > > > * 0 in favour of Java 11 > > * 1.5 in favour of Java 17 (the .5 is because I split a vote between > > Java 17 and 21) > > * 2.5 in favour of Java 21 > > * 4 seem neutral (including myself) > > > > Do we take that as an agreement to require Java 21 for building Maven 4? > > > > On a related question, what should be the minimal Java version for > > *running* Maven 4? Keeping in mind that if Java 21 (for example) was > > required, users would still be able to compile for an older Java version > > using the --release option. > > > > Martin > > > > > -- > Elliotte Rusty Harold > elh...@ibiblio.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > >
