Skip to main content
Software Engineering

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

5
  • 2
    that should be an accepted answer. EOL-date based reasoning has proven to work best for me whenever there was a need to justify particular product updates, particularly including Java. To complete justification, I would also add the note about backward binary compatibility (preferably backed up with some official Oracle statement) and a note about the need to smoke test the update (for the case of eg some unexpected dependencies on hardcoded references to version "6" in application configs) Commented Jul 16, 2013 at 7:41
  • 1
    it's basically the only reason most companies will upgrade. Commented Jul 16, 2013 at 7:56
  • Michael, would it make sense to add notes I mentioned (clarifications on compatibility and smoke testing) into your answer? for the sake of completeness so to speak Commented Jul 16, 2013 at 14:17
  • 1
    @gnat: done, though I doubt the people who are against the migration need to be told about the need for testing and rather more than just smoke tests, too. There most definitely are sometimes serious incompatibilities. Commented Jul 16, 2013 at 14:58
  • @MichaelBorgwardt well, telling about that is somewhat tricky thing and it has more to do about being compelling rather than technically correct. I for one learned rather hard way to state stuff like that explicitly and clearly when there are guys "aginst the change". This kind of sends them signal, "we listen and share your concerns, and we worry too", makes them feel valued (as opposed to ignored)... and eventually leads to easier approval of the change :) Commented Jul 16, 2013 at 15:05