hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nicolas Liochon <nkey...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: jdk 1.7 & trunk
Date Wed, 25 Jun 2014 21:38:51 GMT
Yeah. It would also be so much simpler when it comes to backporting from
master to 0.98, and 0.98 could very likely live a long life, a la 0.94. So
the sooner we're clear on this the better.
 And anyway, Hadoop will likely drop the JDK6 in a 2.x release, so we will
be stuck with a 2.5 or so if we don't stop the JDK6 support.

Lastly, HBase 0.94 is still alive and kicking for the 1.6 lovers.

> We can vote.  Could also just decide.

Let's try to decide here. If I understand correctly, for 1.0 we're done: we
don't support JDK6
For 0.98, I chatted offline with Enis & Stack, dropping the JDK6 support is
not a showstopper for them.
Andrew would be ok as well.

So is it at least acceptable for all of us to drop the JDK6 support in 0.98
and 1.0?

Thanks,

Nicolas





On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 9:54 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)
>

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