Howdy, very same sentiment over here as well. I am very disappointed with the outcome.
So, I am curious about folks voting -1... Is one of them planning to go rogue and surprise us all by doing a Maven 4 GA release soon? :D Thanks T On Sat, May 10, 2025 at 8:58 PM Mirko Friedenhagen <[email protected]> wrote: > > I completely second Manfred here: > > - People who are willing to use Maven 4 soonish should be considered fast > movers. So I guess these are already using Java 21 anyways. > - Going from Java 17 to 21 does not require major adaptions if any in code in > my experience. > - New LTS Java 25 comes out this year, so even 21 will not be the shiny new > version. > > Mit freundlichen Grüßen > Mirko Friedenhagen > — > Sent from my mobile > > > Am 04.05.2025 um 20:45 schrieb Manfred Moser <[email protected]>: > > > > Hi all, > > > > I find this extremely disappointing and also confusing. A majority of > > binding and non-binding votes opted FOR adopting Java 21. How can this be > > justified with our procedures? > > > > Here are my arguments for adopting Java 21 that seems to have been asked > > for although they are imho obvious. > > > > * Maven 4 will be a brand new release with many changes. An upgrade of the > > required Java version is already included. Changing that from 17 to 21 does > > not have that much impact on users. > > > > * Java 21 is the latest current Java LTS release, and Java 25 as the next > > LTS will be out in September .. that might even be before Maven 4 ships. > > > > * Java 21 has numerous improvements on top of 17 that making programming > > with it better (and newer versions are even better). > > > > * Programmers will be less inclined to help a project that uses an old Java > > version (17 is 3 years old.. ) and therefore prohibits them for using > > modern programming styles and usage. > > > > * Performance of Java 21 is better and it is more suitable to run on > > containers (which is common for CI and CD systems these days. > > > > * As a project overall we should strive to provide modern powerful tooling > > and that also includes using modern runtime versions and taking advantage > > of new features. > > > > * A later upgrade to Java 21 in in 4.1 for example seem to make sense sense > > for a minor version update. > > > > * Holding us back to Java 17 means we can not start refactoring the code to > > take advantage of features from 18, 19, 20, and 21. > > > > Beyond that I want to discount the "valid" arguments: > > > > * Procedurally there is nothing wrong with changing in the RC phase. There > > is no rule about how long that phase is and how many RCs there should be. > > > > * The new constraints on users only apply if they upgrade to Maven 4 .. > > which is completely optional. > > > > * Even people who voted with -1 said that they would like to upgrade and > > that it would be nice, so what is really holding this back. > > > > I therefore ask for the conclusion to be reconsidered and following our > > majority rules to adopt the raise to Java 21 as requirements for Maven 4 > > before we release a final version. > > > > Manfred > > > >> On 2025-05-03 11:57 p.m., Matthias Bünger wrote: > >> Morning everyone, > >> first I would like to thank everybody who participated in the vote [*1] > >> about lifting the required Java version to 21 for Maven 4.0.0. > >> > >> The vote has ended with the following votes: > >> > >> -------------- > >> Binding votes: > >> > >> +1: Sylwester Lachiewicz, Karl Heinz Marbaise, Tamás Cservenák, Benjamin > >> Marwell, Arnaud Héritier, Tibor Digaňa > >> > >> -1: Michael Osipov, Maarten Mulders, Olivier Lamy, Slawomir Jaranowski, > >> Hervé Boutemy > >> > >> > >> Non-binding votes: > >> > >> +1: Gary Gregory, Mateusz Gajewski, Mantas Gridinas, Rodrigo Bourbon, > >> Willker Gomes, Hans Aikema, Martin Desruisseaux, Torsten Heit, Sandra > >> Parsick, Dawid Law, Philipp Picej, John Neffenger, Jeremy Landis, Daniel > >> B. Widdis, Michael Bien, Gregorz Grzybek, Kévin Buntrock, Jorge Solorzano, > >> Mark Derricutt, Matthias Bünger, Basil Crow, Romain Manni-Bucau, Thomas > >> Sundberg, Anders Hammar, Piotr P. Karwasz, Niels Basjes, Enrico Olivelli > >> > >> -1: Elliotte Rusty Harold > >> > >> -------------- > >> > >> 5 out of 11 binding votes are -1 with valid arguments, including that > >> there is no actual need to upgrade, that (it's too late, as ) we are > >> already in RC phase, and that it might put on new constraints to users. > >> The vote was (in line to the vote about lifting Maven 4 to Java 17) a > >> "procedural majority vote", meaing a simple majority of binding votes > >> would be enough to considered it to be passed. But due the high number of > >> negative votes and brought up arguments, I don't think we should ignore > >> them but take them into consideration for the benefit of the Maven > >> community. Therefore I call the vote to be non successful. We can > >> reevaluate in the future, including having a closer look at / discussion > >> about the benefits and constraints of raising the Java version. > >> > >> > >> Wish you a happy sunday! > >> Matthias > >> > >> [*1]: https://lists.apache.org/thread/mjbx64vlbd346ov3l4wj6fy9vh8608vr > >> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
