Mailing-List: contact yarn-dev-help@hadoop.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: yarn-dev@hadoop.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of cnauroth@hortonworks.com
 designates 209.85.216.47 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAHfHakFYcy59ai7WHNjoXoFUKR3RjZu4L6tUquJGHiBTN9YJoQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAGB5D2beXX_VTjv=zpCQYh1ZeMQYqha9EAFy-eVnEONWT+s3jA@mail.gmail.com>
	<347D40C0-9156-40C5-9859-60D5B93D8BC9@hortonworks.com>
	<CAGB5D2a5fEDfBApQyER_zyhc8a4Xd_ea1wJSsxxkiAiDZO9+Ng@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJs-t7NGMz4yqSjj0ea_AUyr9mczWOaSOhpr8O=cgKihPY+pag@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAHfHakFYcy59ai7WHNjoXoFUKR3RjZu4L6tUquJGHiBTN9YJoQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 14:04:10 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CABCYYb-CGkU-Epm2b68B6d6fctrcs9VvMhVmaP+xDSgwoFajxw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Moving to JDK7, JDK8 and new major releases
From: Chris Nauroth <cnauroth@hortonworks.com>
To: "yarn-dev@hadoop.apache.org" <yarn-dev@hadoop.apache.org>
Cc: "common-dev@hadoop.apache.org" <common-dev@hadoop.apache.org>,
	"mapreduce-dev@hadoop.apache.org" <mapreduce-dev@hadoop.apache.org>,
	"hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org" <hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c12aaef9bf7c04fcaf6a5e

--001a11c12aaef9bf7c04fcaf6a5e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

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 <omalley@apache.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Alejandro Abdelnur <tucu@cloudera.com>
> 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.

--001a11c12aaef9bf7c04fcaf6a5e--