hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org>
Subject Re: jdk 1.7 & trunk
Date Fri, 27 Jun 2014 18:28:42 GMT
Thanks for providing a patch for that issue. It will be in .4 as soon as we
can get it out the door. I was initially planning to start the RC vote for
.4 on Monday 6/30, but we have a new blocker (patch should come in
tomorrow), and I can see from a bisect-in-progress that a change committed
since the last release has destabilized our test suite, so there may be a
delay of a few days.


On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 6:45 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <cos@apache.org> wrote:

> That's certainly a possibility. With JDK6U45 everything works.
> And I have stepped on HBASE-11418 ;(
>
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 11:52AM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
> > 0.98 compiles using the recent version of Java 6, 6u45. I think there
> was a
> > compiler bug wrt type erasure introduced somewhere in the middle of that
> > lineage that could still be in OpenJDK. In any case, please see
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BIGTOP-1110?focusedCommentId=14044099&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-14044099
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Andrew Purtell <
> andrew.purtell@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Try compiling with Oracle Java 6. Same result ?
> > >
> > > > On Jun 25, 2014, at 12:54 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <cos@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Back in time of JDK6 GA - when I was still working in Sun's JDK team
> -
> > > we had
> > > > companies sitting on 1.4 and paying _a lot_ of money for Sun support
> of
> > > it.
> > > > So...
> > > >
> > > > That said, I think moving to JDK7 is pretty much has happened
> already for
> > > > HBase, because e.g. 0.98.2 can not be build with JDK6 because we see
> > > >  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-8479
> > > > in Bigtop CI.
> > > >
> > > > Cos
> > > >
> > > >> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:29AM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
> > > >> Er, I mean no user should be running on a runtime less than 7, they
> are
> > > all
> > > >> EOL...
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Andrew Purtell <
> apurtell@apache.org>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Nicolas Liochon <
> nkeywal@gmail.com>
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> Should we be 1.7 only for trunk / 1.0?
> > > >>>> This would mean using the 1.7 features.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I think this is prudent. Hadoop common is having a similar
> discussion
> > > and
> > > >>> I think converging on consensus that they would be ok with their
> trunk
> > > >>> including features only available in 7.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> What about .98?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> ​I don't think this is an option, because although no user should
> be
> > > >>> running with a 7 runtime (and in fact performance conscious users
> > > should be
> > > >>> looking hard at 8), vendors will still have to support customers
> on 6.
> > > ​
> > > >>>
> > > >>> --
> > > >>> Best regards,
> > > >>>
> > > >>>   - Andy
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. -
Piet
> > > Hein
> > > >>> (via Tom White)
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Best regards,
> > > >>
> > > >>   - Andy
> > > >>
> > > >> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> Hein
> > > >> (via Tom White)
> > >
>



-- 
Best regards,

   - Andy

Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message