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 22:44:28 GMT
Russ, the master branch would be relabeled 3.0. It's not compatible. We're
just determining what to call this release and its minimum dependencies. It
wouldn't change its contents.

On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 6:39 PM Russ Weeks <rweeks@newbrightidea.com> wrote:

> I was under the impression that there were a few changes in 2.0 that (a)
> break semver and (b) are not quite ready to go? Because any such changes
> would have to wait for 3.0 wouldn't they? Otherwise 2.1 (say) would not be
> backwards-compatible with 2.0?
>
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 2:28 PM Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com> 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