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 22:04:27 GMT
Yeah, this discussion presumes the current vote fails. Also, it means we
wouldn't really be dropping any deprecated stuffs from 1.* until at least
3.0.0. I think some folks might be happy about that. I'm certainly not
going to push for removing anything this late in the game. This would just
be like a minor release, but with new JDK requirements and named like a
major release. The 1.8 branch is also building on Hadoop 2.6.4 by default,
so it might also be best to document that we recommend using at least that
(though not certain it's strictly required... earlier versions are just not
well-tested).

On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 5:57 PM Michael Wall <mjwall@gmail.com> wrote:

> I am good with requiring Java 8 and moving to 2.0 for the release.  Doesn't
> look like the vote for 1.8.0 is going to pass, which is good.  That gives
> us a little more time to discuss this.  We will have to redo all the
> testing, which is fine too.
>
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > That's fine with me. I think people might expect a bigger jump with a
> major
> > version change like that, but it's not a big deal. The good stuffs I was
> > hoping to get into a 2.0 will just happen at 3.0 instead.
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 5:28 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