So my point about versioning WRT to the Java runtime is more about how there are incompatibilities within the granularity of Java versions we talk about (I'm specifically referencing a Kerberos incompatibility within versions of Java 7), so I think that just blanket saying "We support Java X or Y" really isn't enough. I personally feel some kind of version bump is nice to say that something has changed, but until the public API starts exposing Java 8 features, it's a total cop out to say, "Here's all these bug fixes and some new features, oh by the way upgrade your infrastructure because we decided to use a new Java version for an optional feature".
The best parallel I can think of is in Scala, where there's no binary compatibility between minor versions (ie, 2.10, 2.11,etc), so there's generally an extra qualifier on libraries marking the scala compability level. Would we ever want to have accumulo-server-1.7-j[7|8] styled artifacts to signal some general JRE compatibility? It's a total mess, but I haven't seen a better solution. Another idea is we could potentially have some guarantee for Java 7, such as making sure we can build a distribution using Java 7, but only distribute Java 8 artifacts by default? On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:30 PM, Josh Elser <josh.el...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sean Busbey wrote: > >> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 8:55 AM, Josh Elser<josh.el...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> > Thanks for the input, Sean. >>> > >>> > Playing devil's advocate: we didn't have a major version bump when we >>> > dropped JDK6 support (in Accumulo-1.7.0). Oracle has EOL'ed java 7 >>> back in >>> > April 2015. Was the 6->7 upgrade different than a 7->8 upgrade? >>> > >>> >> >> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 10:31 AM, Keith Turner<ke...@deenlo.com> wrote: >> >>> > On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 1:54 AM, Sean Busbey<bus...@cloudera.com> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> >>>> >> If we drop jdk7 support, I would strongly prefer a major version >>>> bump. >>>> >> >>>> >>> > >>> > >>> > Whats the rationale for binding a bump to Accumulo 2.0 with a bump in >>> the >>> > JDK version? >>> > >>> >> >> The decision to drop JDK6 support happened in latemarch / earlyApril >> 2014[1], long before any of our discussions or decisions on semver. >> AFAICT it didn't get discussed again, presumably because by the time >> we got to 1.7.0 RCs it was too far in the past. >> > > Thanks for the correction, Sean. I hadn't dug around closely enough. >
