camel-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aki Yoshida <elak...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Move to java 8 for 2.17?
Date Fri, 29 Jan 2016 10:14:05 GMT
Hi Christian,
But if we follow this rule literally, we would need to bump the major
version every time when we do a minor release like we do now. In each
minor release, we are introducing a  bunch of binary incompatibilities
that require updates of the underlining libraries. The servers
document[1] has a faq entry [2] that suggests the rule that you quoted
should be evaluated against its const/benefit. I interpret this as to
say that JRE upgrade is allowed with a minor version upgrade.

[2] http://semver.org/#if-even-the-tiniest-backwards-incompatible-changes-to-the-public-api-require-a-major-version-bump-wont-i-end-up-at-version-4200-very-rapidly

regards, aki

2016-01-29 9:21 GMT+01:00 Christian Müller <christian.mueller@gmail.com>:
> Yes, it's a minor release. And regarding to [1]:
>
> MINOR version when you add functionality in a backwards-compatible manner
>
> And that's not the case, if you have to upgrade your JRE.
>
> [1] http://semver.org/
>
> Best,
> Christian
> -----------------
>
> Software Integration Specialist
>
> Apache Member
> V.P. Apache Camel | Apache Camel PMC Member | Apache Camel committer
> Apache Incubator PMC Member
>
> https://www.linkedin.com/pub/christian-mueller/11/551/642
>
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 1:31 AM, Daniel Kulp <dkulp@apache.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> 2.16 -> 2.17 is not a patch release, it’s a minor release with new
>> features and dependency updates and such.
>>
>> 2.16.1 -> 2.16.2 is a patch release.
>>
>> I would agree no changes in JDK requirements on a patch release.   A minor
>> release is different.
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jan 28, 2016, at 5:52 PM, Christian Müller <
>> christian.mueller@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > I'm with James (even we did it otherwise in the past). A patch release
>> > shouldn't require you to upgrade your JRE.
>> >
>> > Camel 2.17 = Java 1.7
>> > Camel 3.0 = Java 1.8
>> >
>> > May it forces us to work on Camel 3.0 ;-)
>> >
>> > Best,
>> > Christian
>> > -----------------
>> >
>> > Software Integration Specialist
>> >
>> > Apache Member
>> > V.P. Apache Camel | Apache Camel PMC Member | Apache Camel committer
>> > Apache Incubator PMC Member
>> >
>> > https://www.linkedin.com/pub/christian-mueller/11/551/642
>> >
>> > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 7:13 PM, Claus Ibsen <claus.ibsen@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 3:48 PM, James Carman
>> >> <james@carmanconsulting.com> wrote:
>> >>> I would rather us bump the major version number if we're going to start
>> >>> requiring users to use Java8.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Yeah that was also my first thought.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I would like to keep Camel 2.17 as-is on Java 1.7. Then if 2.18 is
>> >> Java 1.8+ then its much easier to remember as the numbers are aligned.
>> >>
>> >> Camel 2.17 = Java 1.7
>> >> Camel 2.18 = Java 1.8
>> >>
>> >> We can always release Camel 2.17 sooner, its been a while since 2.16,
>> >> so maybe aim for a release in next month?
>> >>
>> >> A reason to keep it on 1.7 is also it would otherwise throw some Camel
>> >> end users under the bus anticipating they can use it on Java 1.7. Then
>> >> we can announce Camel 2.17 would be the last release with Java 1.7 -
>> >> even ahead of time.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 9:35 AM Daniel Kulp <dkulp@apache.org>
wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> For master (targeting 2.17), I see we’re still setup for Java7.
>> Would
>> >>>> it make sense to move to requiring Java8?  We can certainly start
>> taking
>> >>>> advantage of the new things in Java8, but there are also dependencies
>> >> (like
>> >>>> Jetty) that now require Java8 and more and more of them will be
>> >> requiring
>> >>>> that.  (example:  CXF 3.2 will be Java8 only as well)
>> >>>>
>> >>>> It sometimes makes back merging fixes to 2.16/2.15 tricky if you
use
>> >> Java8
>> >>>> features, but that’s going to be a problem eventually anyway.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Thoughts?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> --
>> >>>> Daniel Kulp
>> >>>> dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
>> >>>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Claus Ibsen
>> >> -----------------
>> >> http://davsclaus.com @davsclaus
>> >> Camel in Action 2: https://www.manning.com/ibsen2
>> >>
>>
>> --
>> Daniel Kulp
>> dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>>
>>

Mime
View raw message