-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.7k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Move to JDK 8 as minimum runtie JDK and JDK 9+ as build JDK #1554
Move to JDK 8 as minimum runtie JDK and JDK 9+ as build JDK #1554
Conversation
acea55a
to
3a79feb
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Does it make sense to call this 6.0?
Does it make sense to do a major version increment to 6.0 and follow semver after that? |
+1 on the major version increment, and I thought we were already following semver. |
From my POV a clear -1 on the version change. This version is API and ABI compatible with prior releases. It just does not run on ancient JDKs anymore. I you are still running on a JDK < 8, you have other reasons to be concerned and must expect every library release to break compatibility. I assume, that 99.99999% of all users will not notice any difference between 5.13.0 and 5.14.0. For the semver thing: Yes we are there. The last screw up was inside the 4.X series, where incompatible changes were made without bumping major version. |
So you claim this doesn't break semver? I can surely get along with that because JDK .... 6 but if you were dropping JDK 8 I would probably feel otherwise! :) Here's a conversation about exactly this topic: semver/semver#534 (comment). It's pretty clear that this is semver-breaking. |
Well, I have never changed to Java 8 support on a minor version bump.
https://github.com/oshi/oshi/blob/master/CHANGELOG.md#25-2016-04-06.
Oops, maybe I have.
…On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 11:24 AM Daniel (dB.) Doubrovkine < ***@***.***> wrote:
From my POV a clear -1 on the version change. This version is API and ABI
compatible with prior releases. It just does not run on ancient JDKs
anymore.
So you claim this doesn't break semver? I can surely get along with that :)
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#1554 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACG4PN6QUUMYUH65XRHIISDX533NTAVCNFSM6AAAAAA5Q55336VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTONBZGQZDSMJUG4>
.
You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID:
***@***.***>
--
Dan Widdis
|
So I ran JNA 5.13.0 JAR and 5.14.0-SNAPSHOT build from this branch through The "problem" being reported can be ignored, as the constant |
--release
flag with a value of 8. The bytecode level and thus minimum runtime JDK is raised to 8.build.xml
modeled after the JNA one. NetBeans integration was moved from Java Project to Java Freeform Project (this was already the case for JNA)