[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] jdt.core move to Java 7 BREE

Our consensus has always been to not have a consensus. Each project moved to where they needed to be when they needed to be. Obviously the decisions of other projects affect yours, particularly the platform. And for that, I go by their project plan which has no mention of JRE 6 for Mars.

https://www.eclipse.org/projects/project-plan.php?planurl=/eclipse/development/plans/eclipse_project_plan_4_5.xml

Doug.

From: Ed Willink <ed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: Cross project issues <cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, March 4, 2015 at 11:46 AM
To: "cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx" <cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] jdt.core move to Java 7 BREE

Hi

(I would love it if Mars required Java 8, since I like @NonNull annotations and the Java 7 compatibility is really troublesome.)

However I am keen that my project follows the Eclipse consensus, which does not seem to exist. My Hudson builds now fail so I need to know where the new consensus is.

    Regards

        Ed Willink

On 04/03/2015 16:32, Konstantin Komissarchik wrote:

What is the rationale for wanting to keep BREE levels as low as possible? Even Java 7 enters the “no further public updates” phase in April of this year. JRE 7 users in the normal update pipeline were upgraded to Java 8 in January. Are there really users out there who _cannot_ run a newer version of the JRE despite security and performance implications of running an old version? I am guessing that if Mars were to require Java 8, there would be some initial grumbling over having to upgrade, then everyone moves on in a better and more secure configuration.

 

http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/downloads/eol-135779.html

 

Thanks,

 

- Konstantin

 

 

From: cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ed Willink
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 6:57 AM
To: cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] jdt.core move to Java 7 BREE

 

Hi

But this is important.

When osgi.utils moved from Java 5 to Java 6 that made Eclipse almost unuseable as a Java 5 platform; not really a problem.

Now jdt.core does nearly the same thing for Eclipse as a Java 6 platform. Are we ready to go that far? IMHO it certainly should be discussed and announced.

    Regards

        Ed Willink

On 04/03/2015 14:42, Daniel Megert wrote:

Hi Ed

Yes, this was intended. We never announce BREE changes.

Dani



From:        Ed Willink <ed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To:        Cross project issues <cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:        04.03.2015 15:27
Subject:        [cross-project-issues-dev] jdt.core move to Java 7 BREE
Sent by:        cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx





Hi

Is the recent change in BREE for org.eclipse.jdt.core from Java 6 to
Java 7 intended?

Was it announced?

    Regards

        Ed Willink
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev





_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev




No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2015.0.5751 / Virus Database: 4299/9224 - Release Date: 03/04/15

 



_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev


No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2015.0.5751 / Virus Database: 4299/9224 - Release Date: 03/04/15