db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rick Hillegas <rick.hille...@oracle.com>
Subject Re: Dropping some old platforms in 10.11?
Date Fri, 26 Apr 2013 17:49:22 GMT
On 4/26/13 10:13 AM, Katherine Marsden wrote:
> On 4/26/2013 6:39 AM, Rick Hillegas wrote:
>> Thanks to everyone for working through the implications of this 
>> proposed change. I'd like to summarize the discussion so far by 
>> revamping the proposal as follows:
>> A) We expect that a new feature release (branch) will support the 
>> following Java versions:
>> i) The current version being developed by the Open JDK community. 
>> This is a stretch goal but one which we think we can hit. Let's call 
>> this the CURRENT version.
>> ii) CURRENT - 1
> If I understand the definition of CURRENT that would be java 8, so 
> CURRENT - 2 would be java 6 which I think is still absolutely required 
> and the current plan for 10.11.
> I   feel strongly that we should discuss dropping java version support 
> *as*  we drop it and not rely on a general policy like this moving 
> forward.
>> B) We expect that maintenance releases on a branch will continue to 
>> support the same Java versions as the initial feature release cut 
>> from that branch.
>> C) Developers will need to keep in mind the porting implications of 
>> using modern JVM features in code which may need to be reworked to 
>> run on older JVMs.
>> Adopting this policy would result in the following changes to the 
>> 10.11 trunk:
>> I) Removing build support for Java 5 and CDC.
>> II) Purging user doc references to Java 5, CDC, and the JDBC 4 
>> DataSources.
>> III) Removing the JDBC 4 version of the public api from the published 
>> javadoc. The recently introduced CP2 DataSources would need to 
>> migrate to the JDBC 3 version of the published javadoc. The JDBC 4 
>> versions of the DataSources would still exist, but they would be 
>> vacuous extensions of their JDBC 3 counterparts.
> These particular changes moving forward for 10.11  trunk seem ok to 
> me. Perhaps a vote would be good.
Thanks, Kathey. Here's my plan:

o Continue collecting responses to this proposal and incorporate them 
into a revised proposal (including the feedback you gave above).

o Repeat this process until the proposal stabilizes.

o Then call a vote.

>> Thanks,
>> -Rick

View raw message