I can give you a big branch for both versions, with IntelliJ inspections to use JDK 7 diamond convention to avoid IDE warnings and stuff, I'll work on that, but it will have to be 1 change on master and two branches for code changes, basically I will split the changes in two:
- POM changes on master merge-able to both 1.6 and 1.7
- Code changes with inspections on both, can also take this opportunity for some reformatting.
Let me know if you agree.
I think you can re-create branch 1.6.x so that it is not diverted from 1.7? as both have as starting point JDK 1.7
Or create a 1.6.x called 'NEW_1_6_X'
I already changed the POMs on the 1.6.x branch and the master branch to use JDK7 and JDK8 respectively some hours ago.
As I think about it: maybe your idea to create 1.6.x branch newly from master is not a bad idea. AFAIK there is only issue QFJ-833 that is resolved on 1.7.x but not on 1.6.x, but it should be no problem to have that change on 1.6.x also.
Edit: do you think it would make sense to have a master branch and then a 1.6 and 1.7 branch? Or is it sufficient to have 1.7 developed on master and only one branch for 1.6?
Created https://github.com/quickfix-j/quickfixj/tree/QFJ_1_6_x_NEW
I think master should be the current snapshot which is 1.7.x and whatever is the previous version to have a branch,
in this case QFJ_1_6_x_NEW
Also always make changes on master and cherry pick to respective versions as much as possible, makes things easier and simpler.
Re cherry-picking: yes, that's what I try most of the time. 
Thanks in advance for your help, always appreciated.
Hi Chris,
Maybe I can introduce a JDK 7 optimization and rebase the JDK 8 code changes from it, so that the JDK 7 can be applied to both 1.6.x and 1.7.x
WDYT?
Nevermind, this was done already, so long ago I forgot:
https://github.com/quickfix-j/quickfixj/commit/629b801446431f06e0426aebcf669a2eca341a69
Thanks