Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-hadoop-common-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-hadoop-common-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 687DC11AFF for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2014 22:13:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 9749 invoked by uid 500); 25 Jun 2014 22:13:47 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-hadoop-common-dev-archive@hadoop.apache.org Received: (qmail 9452 invoked by uid 500); 25 Jun 2014 22:13:47 -0000 Mailing-List: contact common-dev-help@hadoop.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: common-dev@hadoop.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list common-dev@hadoop.apache.org Received: (qmail 8925 invoked by uid 99); 25 Jun 2014 22:13:47 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 25 Jun 2014 22:13:47 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of tucu@cloudera.com designates 209.85.192.53 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.192.53] (HELO mail-qg0-f53.google.com) (209.85.192.53) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 25 Jun 2014 22:13:42 +0000 Received: by mail-qg0-f53.google.com with SMTP id i50so2325109qgf.12 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2014 15:13:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=XfePFGfnTTM0VXBMxa6qbvBIqQmPRGhFDchWEeGmeis=; b=mK0XIobnB2zvA0vnJ/tLeNQ1dVQRLsZJ/JAWmmX75YbG08dG1JYJAtMHWz0NF3mbyZ eFG73ZA8oceYDm4McrJMgOhZXLamZVFWUxv1XKZyW+7voyfmkadBYlKzR31adFYUqZAt D3LNpJkJNm8UUSk7t1akiSOC+T79zFwV2tYgaGMRt0pDV+n7SwC3QjQm7lN0ZtqeHb2W Bb6P+RinKb3oEQK4Nacc4NO7Hz2av7HQ31RqTEmovddVvGkpKE3ct1PK/EP0hYloR0ae sCqbg0Yoqyt4oJfqACahtRKelCNi2Aarp4AsFwc9i8vw6/Dw93Bgpdx7eJH0St1Ekgrl I7Fw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl0X6PFZxGagwTzw7iTaagOfpiZQF5+Bi2YIZuQAYXcJ80gaIeMeSuNhhM1RtDjY1Zrm+08 X-Received: by 10.229.191.135 with SMTP id dm7mr16329975qcb.9.1403734401922; Wed, 25 Jun 2014 15:13:21 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.96.59.134 with HTTP; Wed, 25 Jun 2014 15:12:50 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <347D40C0-9156-40C5-9859-60D5B93D8BC9@hortonworks.com> From: Alejandro Abdelnur Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 15:12:50 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Moving to JDK7, JDK8 and new major releases To: "common-dev@hadoop.apache.org" Cc: "yarn-dev@hadoop.apache.org" , "mapreduce-dev@hadoop.apache.org" , "hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11338cc662ce4b04fcb062f1 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --001a11338cc662ce4b04fcb062f1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Chris, Compiling with jdk7 and doing javac -target 1.6 is not sufficient, you are still using jdk7 libraries and you could use new APIs, thus breaking jdk6 both at compile and runtime. you need to compile with jdk6 to ensure you are not running into that scenario. that is why i was suggesting the nightly jdk6 build/test jenkins job. On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Chris Nauroth wrote: > I'm also +1 for getting us to JDK7 within the 2.x line after reading the > proposals and catching up on the discussion in this thread. > > Has anyone yet considered how to coordinate this change with downstream > projects? Would we request downstream projects to upgrade to JDK7 first > before we make the move? Would we switch to JDK7, but run javac -target > 1.6 to maintain compatibility for downstream projects during an interim > period? > > Chris Nauroth > Hortonworks > http://hortonworks.com/ > > > > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 9:48 AM, Owen O'Malley wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Alejandro Abdelnur > > wrote: > > > > > After reading this thread and thinking a bit about it, I think it > should > > be > > > OK such move up to JDK7 in Hadoop > > > > > > I agree with Alejandro. Changing minimum JDKs is not an incompatible > change > > and is fine in the 2 branch. (Although I think it is would *not* be > > appropriate for a patch release.) Of course we need to do it with > > forethought and testing, but moving off of JDK 6, which is EOL'ed is a > good > > thing. Moving to Java 8 as a minimum seems much too aggressive and I > would > > push back on that. > > > > I'm also think that we need to let the dust settle on the Hadoop 2 line > for > > a while before we talk about Hadoop 3. It seems that it has only been in > > the last 6 months that Hadoop 2 adoption has reached the main stream > users. > > Our user community needs time to digest the changes in Hadoop 2.x before > we > > fracture the community by starting to discuss Hadoop 3 releases. > > > > .. Owen > > > > -- > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE > NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to > which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, > privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader > of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that > any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or > forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have > received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately > and delete it from your system. Thank You. > -- Alejandro --001a11338cc662ce4b04fcb062f1--