accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Java 8
Date Thu, 18 Aug 2016 23:13:41 GMT
Oh, master is in a terrible state (test instabilities). I wouldn't think
it's even close. Trying to support 1.6, 1.7, and working towards 1.8,
there's nothing left for working on master.

If we wanted to do a quick 2.0 release and a Java 7 1.8 release, we can
fork a 2.0 from 1.8 for JDK 8.

My main concern with this suggestion, though, is the need to continue to
support 4x branches. 1.7, 1.8, 2.0, and whatever master becomes (probably
3.0). I think it'll spread us far too thin (I think we're already too
thin), and I don't think we can afford to drop 1.7, like we can for 1.6,
because 1.8 hasn't been "in the wild" long enough yet, and we should
continue to support 1.7.

On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 6:50 PM Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com> wrote:

> I'm all for moving us towards java 8+ only, but I'm still -1 on
> dropping java 7 in a minor release. Plenty of folks still run Java 7
> in production. I'm sure a non-zero number of them will want to update
> versions and a major version is how we communicate that level of
> expected disruption.
>
> How about we get 1.8 out the door with Java 7 + Java 8, then try to
> get master out the door with Java 8 as the minimum version? What's the
> blocker on a release from master now?
>
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 5:46 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:
> > We need to make sure this release works with Java 8 anyway... but this
> > change would tighten things up a bit, so we don't have to worry about
> > supporting Java 7. It narrows our testing and allows us to focus on just
> > the non-EOL, modern Java versions that we should be realistically
> expecting
> > users of Accumulo 1.8 to be using anyway.
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 6:37 PM Josh Elser <josh.elser@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Err, I am not a big fan of making this change after two rc's and all of
> >> the testing I've been babysitting this week.
> >>
> >> I have no problem with you spinning a 2.0 which is 99% similar to 1.8
> >> with whatever else you'd like to do (in fact, I'd encourage anyone to
> >> step up and drive 2.0 to release).
> >>
> >> Sean Busbey wrote:
> >> > Why don't we just make the 1.8 branch 2.0 then? I really don't want to
> >> > drop support for JDKs on non-major releases; it's super disruptive.
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Christopher<ctubbsii@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> >> I know we've talked about this before, but I kind of want to just use
> >> Java
> >> >> 8 for Accumulo 1.8. It'd help clean up some things in the build (can
> >> make
> >> >> use of newer versions of build plugins, and make it easier for new
> >> >> development against the latest release).
> >> >>
> >> >> I just don't know how reasonable it is to keep making new, non-bugfix
> >> >> releases on EOL JDKs (even though I may have previously argued that
> >> it'd be
> >> >> safer to just wait until a major version bump).
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
>
>
>
> --
> busbey
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message