Mailing-List: contact dev-help@accumulo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
Received-SPF: softfail (nike.apache.org: transitioning domain of
 wilhelm.von.cloud@accumulo.net does not designate 209.85.214.177 as permitted
 sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAL5zq9Zw3PZEzF7SWVZJWuhRv-J+ar+Oip3jSFAo5gjjdDcbgA@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAL5zq9YsiTkVhJgJ6Zzn-AYYNGq_xuQeFWXRT6AEaAxpUBacHg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGHyZ6LB+L2+s8MJfuwX8Vt7BaFkXE926ArgzJ+JumRzySFeAA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAL5zq9Zw3PZEzF7SWVZJWuhRv-J+ar+Oip3jSFAo5gjjdDcbgA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 18:31:41 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CAMz+DuvyHjL_GteNx27P5KkUfsgOn73TDQ540NRXWyP2gvpOhg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] JDK 1.7 - Switch for Accumulo 1.6.0
From: William Slacum <wilhelm.von.cloud@accumulo.net>
To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0158b64259550604de478706

--089e0158b64259550604de478706
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

+1 because:

- Java 1.6 has reached EOL, making Java 1.7 inevitable
- we're very early in the planning phase for Accumulo 1.6, which means we
hopefully won't break or invalidate already-contributed features to it


I don't think a 2.0.0 should be motivated by an upgrade in a dependency,
even if it's the most important dependency of all.


On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 6:23 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com> wrote:
> > Dropping JDK6 support is a pretty big deal.
>
> I don't know that it's as big a deal as many think it is, but it is
> certainly big enough to require a vote, I think.
>
> > Is it worth making it a 2.0.0 feature instead of 1.6.0?
> >
> > If not, what would be the distinction for a 2.0.0?
>
> Good question. We have not discussed the kinds of big features that
> would require updating the major revision number in a release. I don't
> think this is it, but if it, then that could be held as a separate
> vote.
>
> > In the mean time we could explicitly change testing to be on JDK7 instead
> > of JDK6 as an initial step.
>
> I don't know what you mean by this. I've been running on JRE7 for
> quite some time (at least 6 months). Other than that, what kind of
> test procedures are you suggesting?
>
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Given all the previous discussions about this, and assuming all points
> >> and counterpoints have already been sufficiently enumerated, I'd like
> >> to put it to a vote, explicitly:
> >>
> >> Should we switch to JDK 1.7 for Accumulo 1.6.0, to take advantage of
> >> newer features (ACCUMULO-905), or should we continue to require that
> >> Accumulo 1.6.0 run on JRE 1.6?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Christopher L Tubbs II
> >> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sean Busbey
> > Solutions Architect
> > Cloudera, Inc.
> > Phone: MAN-VS-BEARD
>
>
> --
> Christopher L Tubbs II
> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>

--089e0158b64259550604de478706--