Also. -1 because I forgot that there was a vote open.
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 7:25 PM, Mike Drob <md...@mdrob.com> wrote: > I think building the binary release using 1.7, but still maintaining 1.6 > compatibility is a nice compromise. You're providing enough of a carrot to > use 1.7 (hey look, we already built it for you), but you're not alienating > the users that still need 1.6 classes for whatever reason. If something > like this were to be implemented, then it would be necessary to provide > very clear documentation on how to run Accumulo on different JREs. > > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 7:09 PM, Josh Elser <josh.el...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> -1 >> >> There is concern that has been voiced by users in which this may alienate >> them from moving to Accumulo 1.6. Many arguments for moving to Java 1.7 are >> based on wanting to use some new feature or syntactic sugar. Also, not >> building artifacts against Java 1.7 would not keep people from running with >> Java 1.7 (even though Accumulo was built against 1.6). >> >> On the other side, Oracle has stated that no further security-related >> issues will be patched on Java 1.6. Given that most people using Accumulo >> are security minded, this is important. >> >> Forcing Java 1.7 alienates a group of users. Allowing users to run with >> Java 1.6 or 1.7 virtual machines satisfies all parties. As such, I don't >> believe this is best. >> >> Like John said, I agree that adequate discussion hasn't been had here to >> justify forcing a change. Accumulo is not that popular that we can force >> people to do what we think is best. I would be happy to continue to >> participate in discussions as to the concrete benefits forcing Java 1.7 >> provides. >> >> >> On 06/05/2013 04:42 PM, Christopher wrote: >> >>> The vote was already called, and it was a vote on whether we should do >>> it now (now, as in for Accumulo 1.6.0 development). If you think more >>> time is needed, then your vote should be no. I don't think it's >>> productive to continue to have a meta-discussion about whether or not >>> a discussion/vote should occur. Just vote "-1", with a reason "not >>> enough time to address potential concerns". >>> >>> -- >>> Christopher L Tubbs II >>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 2:14 PM, John Vines <vi...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Given this thread, I think more discussion is necessary before a vote. >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> All- >>>>> >>>>> Please explicitly vote in favor or against changing the java >>>>> dependency to >=1.7. >>>>> >>>>> Parsing vague "may cause..." or "might be..." concerns throughout the >>>>> text of the thread is tedious, and does not help me know what the >>>>> consensus of the group is, so we can move forward. If there's a >>>>> specific issue that is informing your vote, that's great, feel free to >>>>> state it, but I don't want this issue to drag out for the duration of >>>>> the the Accumulo 1.6.0 development cycle because people are reluctant >>>>> to come to a concrete opinion. >>>>> >>>>> If it fails a vote, we'll revisit for Accumulo 1.7.0. >>>>> >>>>> I'm personally in favor of the change (+1), but it's not a big deal to >>>>> me. I just want a concrete resolution. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Christopher L Tubbs II >>>>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 10:51 AM, John Vines <vi...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I have also heard mulling about issues with the way Kerberos >>>>>> >>>>> authentication >>>>> >>>>>> behaves with JDK1.7 for hadoop. This may also have implications on the >>>>>> Accumulo implementation as well. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 10:37 PM, Ben Popp <b...@sqrrl.com> wrote: >>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> CDH4 claims JDK 1.6 and 1.7 support: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://www.cloudera.com/**content/cloudera-content/** >>>>> cloudera-docs/CDH4/latest/**CDH4-Requirements-and-** >>>>> Supported-Versions/cdhrsv_**topic_3.html<http://www.cloudera.com/content/cloudera-content/cloudera-docs/CDH4/latest/CDH4-Requirements-and-Supported-Versions/cdhrsv_topic_3.html> >>>>> >>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> CDH4 comes with some additional caveats about 1.7: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.cloudera.com/**content/cloudera-content/** >>>>> cloudera-docs/CDH4/latest/**CDH4-Release-Notes/cdh4rn_** >>>>> topic_2_2.html?scroll=concept_**c1n_bln_tj_unique_1<http://www.cloudera.com/content/cloudera-content/cloudera-docs/CDH4/latest/CDH4-Release-Notes/cdh4rn_topic_2_2.html?scroll=concept_c1n_bln_tj_unique_1> >>>>> >>>>>> The biggest one being the disclaimer about 1.7 compiled code. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Sean >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >> >
