Mailing-List: contact dev-help@accumulo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAL5zq9b4MV7iHJ1WfrQsVzkJ9RCtaZ2w-WHkaiPtM7ofwNVeaw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL5zq9YEZvBrAodFONJXTY0pSrcNXQOnj0VTaC+Jo8NqdU8mtg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGHyZ6JGR1wnaVbn5Uccb-kyQyW355BP4Ky3kPiRQrrARH5zWQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAL5zq9b4MV7iHJ1WfrQsVzkJ9RCtaZ2w-WHkaiPtM7ofwNVeaw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Michael Wall <mjwall@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 17:57:52 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMJ0=qG_uGh62tSMNBuqbXzEqG-7etSdbu-WqhFBsgMYdjwixg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Java 8
To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1140e6fe6e1b01053a5fac2f
archived-at: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 21:58:04 -0000

--001a1140e6fe6e1b01053a5fac2f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

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
> >
>

--001a1140e6fe6e1b01053a5fac2f--