Open cesarbp opened 10 years ago
@cesarbp If you're dropping 1.6 & 1.7 toss in a warning somewhere.
I think personally I'd prefer clj-time just because I use it elsewhere already and it would make interop super easy. But at the end of the day, its not that big a deal.
Same with me - but I'd also be happy to pitch in on upgrading clj-time to java 8.
@sritchie if it's worth anything, the maintainer of clj-time was pliant when I fixed up the API (that version was the current one until klishin's 0.7.0) so it shouldn't be hard to convince him to let you do it.
+1 for upgrading clj-time to java 8.
:+1: for Java 8 and not clj-time.
I can make the time stuff in revise work with java.time or with clj-time. The former would require java 1.8 for revise to run.
Yay, nay?
Utter silence counts as 1.8 java.time support.