Mailing-List: contact dev-help@accumulo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAL5zq9YEZvBrAodFONJXTY0pSrcNXQOnj0VTaC+Jo8NqdU8mtg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGHyZ6JGR1wnaVbn5Uccb-kyQyW355BP4Ky3kPiRQrrARH5zWQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGHyZ6JGR1wnaVbn5Uccb-kyQyW355BP4Ky3kPiRQrrARH5zWQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Russ Weeks <rweeks@newbrightidea.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 22:39:31 +0000
Message-ID: <CAPVnKEnCxFdVnf0=_2TvszM=Rdo4c-piFuS9Fg9qbO7vo=44RQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Java 8
To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c0854060487b9053a604214
archived-at: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 22:39:48 -0000

--94eb2c0854060487b9053a604214
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

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
>

--94eb2c0854060487b9053a604214--