+1 because: - Java 1.6 has reached EOL, making Java 1.7 inevitable - we're very early in the planning phase for Accumulo 1.6, which means we hopefully won't break or invalidate already-contributed features to it
I don't think a 2.0.0 should be motivated by an upgrade in a dependency, even if it's the most important dependency of all. On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 6:23 PM, Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com> wrote: > > Dropping JDK6 support is a pretty big deal. > > I don't know that it's as big a deal as many think it is, but it is > certainly big enough to require a vote, I think. > > > Is it worth making it a 2.0.0 feature instead of 1.6.0? > > > > If not, what would be the distinction for a 2.0.0? > > Good question. We have not discussed the kinds of big features that > would require updating the major revision number in a release. I don't > think this is it, but if it, then that could be held as a separate > vote. > > > In the mean time we could explicitly change testing to be on JDK7 instead > > of JDK6 as an initial step. > > I don't know what you mean by this. I've been running on JRE7 for > quite some time (at least 6 months). Other than that, what kind of > test procedures are you suggesting? > > > > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> Given all the previous discussions about this, and assuming all points > >> and counterpoints have already been sufficiently enumerated, I'd like > >> to put it to a vote, explicitly: > >> > >> Should we switch to JDK 1.7 for Accumulo 1.6.0, to take advantage of > >> newer features (ACCUMULO-905), or should we continue to require that > >> Accumulo 1.6.0 run on JRE 1.6? > >> > >> -- > >> Christopher L Tubbs II > >> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Sean Busbey > > Solutions Architect > > Cloudera, Inc. > > Phone: MAN-VS-BEARD > > > -- > Christopher L Tubbs II > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii >
