(sorry posting from phone) I missed the run jdk7 artifacts on jdk8 comment: I am not concerned about this case (Oracle worries about it for me). I am worried about jdk8 features being introduced in this hypothetical 2.0 which preclude users from using jdk7 (for a primary reason of "I wanna us new shiny APIs!" without concrete justification).
Christopher has so previously shared his concerns with me about obtaining jdk7 packages from the internet. I do not think these are valid concerns to present as justification for the change. On Aug 22, 2016 18:35, "Josh Elser" <josh.el...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2.0 is not released, so there is no burden. > > Why do we need to maintain 1.6 or 1.7 as active? Why not eol and provide > actual testing and migration strategies to actually *deal* with the > maintenance burden instead of pushing it onto the users? > > I would counter your question about tagging but not releasing with "why > not fix the packaging issues from rc2 and just make the release?" > > With the amount of chatter on this vote thread, I am also now worried that > calling this vote was premature. These are discussions that should have > been hashed out already.. > > On Aug 22, 2016 18:23, <dlmar...@comcast.net> wrote: > > I share your concerns and have proposed releasing a 1.8.0 as-is, followed > by a 2.0 with much the same artifacts plus Java 8 source. In talking with > Christopher about this though, that means that the community would be > supporting 1.6 (until 1.6.6 is released), 1.7.x, 1.8.x, and 2.0.x. Being on > update 102, Java 8 seems pretty stable. Plus, you can run your Java 7 > binaries with the Java 8 JRE. > > Having said that, is there a reason that we can't tag 1.8.0 but not > release it and let other downstream providers create their own supported > release? > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: josh.el...@gmail.com [mailto:josh.el...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of > > Josh Elser > > Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 6:17 PM > > To: dev@accumulo.apache.org > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Plan for next release > > > > Mike Wall asked if I could expand. I realized that my objections were > > probably only in IRC with Christopher and didn't get cross-posted. I had > > thought that they were already present in the discussion thread. > > > > 1. 1.8.0 is practically released already as-is. I spent a good chunk of > the last > > week babysitting tests. This change feels no different than someone shoe- > > horning in a big feature at the last minute. > > > > 2. I think this is a slap in the face to anyone that was waiting on a > 1.8.0 to be > > released as slap in the face. The release that was about to happen now > has > > an even longer cycle. > > > > 3. Assuming that min jdk 8 also implies use of jdk 8 only features (as > was > > mentioned), my experience with customer bases is that people are not yet > > there. Often, these groups do have migration plans in place, but I > haven't > > seen one that has a quicker than one year turnaround. I cannot back any > of > > this up with fact, it is merely observations from my day job. > > > > I do not find the provided reasons to make this last minute change > > justification enough to do it. I am very much against it. > > > > On Aug 22, 2016 17:58, "Josh Elser" <els...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > -1 > > > > > > On Aug 22, 2016 17:22, "Christopher" <ctubb...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > >> After our lengthy (sorry for that) discussions about Java 8, 1.8.0, > > >> and 2.0.0, I wanted to bring us to a vote, just so we can have a > > >> concrete plan of action, without any ambiguity or uncertainty. A vote > > >> is the best option available for resolving differences of opinion > > >> about our upcoming release plans. > > >> > > >> The action to vote on is the following: > > >> > > >> (+1): Drop 1.8 branch, stabilize the master branch, and release > > >> 2.0.0 from master > > >> > > >> If the vote fails to pass, the default action (which is implied by a > > >> -1) is the following: > > >> > > >> (-1): Release 1.8.0, supporting a 1.8.x release series; 2.0.0 and > > >> the master branch will be addressed at some unspecified future time > > >> > > >> This is a majority vote regarding release plans, so we can make > > >> progress on a reasonable release timeline. Specific changes in a > > >> branch can still be veto'd while we work towards the release, as > > >> normal, regardless of the outcome of this vote. > > >> > > >> Here's some main points to consider for this vote: > > >> > > >> * Everything in the 1.8 branch is included in the Master branch. > > >> * Master branch requires Java 8. > > >> * Releasing from master will allow us to work from master again for > > >> routine development, instead of reserving master for unstable > > >> development (which is how it currently has been treated). > > >> * Master branch aggressively removes deprecated stuffs; I'm actively > > >> working on reverting these in master regardless of the vote, because > > >> they introduced some destabilization. > > >> * The one deprecation removal which I intend to keep in Master is the > > >> removal of the trace library (not the tracer server, which will > > >> stay). We don't need the trace library, because we now use HTrace. If > > >> people need the deprecated HTrace wrappers for their own code in that > > >> trace library, they should still be able to use the wrappers in the > > >> 1.7 version of accumulo-trace. They won't need it for Accumulo, > > >> though, because Accumulo doesn't use it, not even in the 1.7 branch. > > >> This would be added to the release notes if this vote passes. > > >> * After reverting the deprecation removals, the master branch is > > >> *very* similar to the 1.8 branch right now. It contains only a few > > >> extra commits, mostly for Java 8-related cleanups and README > > >> improvements. (git log origin/1.8..origin/master --no-merges > > >> --oneline) > > >> * If this vote passes, it will be 100%, or nearly 100%, > > >> backwards-compatible with 1.7.x, just as 1.8 branch is today. This is > > >> because there haven't been much changes in the master branch which > > >> aren't coming from merges from 1.8. This will mean that the entire > > >> 2.x line will be just as backwards-compatible as this next release > > >> and there will be no significant deprecation removals from [1.7.0, > 3.0). > > >> > > >> This vote will end on Thu Aug 25 21:30:00 UTC 2016 (Thu Aug 25 > > >> 17:30:00 EDT 2016 / Thu Aug 25 14:30:00 PDT 2016) > > >> > > > > > >
