+1 This would line up our LTS versions with Java's LTS labeling: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_version_history
On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 10:56 AM Adam Lerman <aler...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 > > On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 8:16 AM Ed Coleman <d...@etcoleman.com> wrote: > > > If I am reading semver correctly ( > > > https://semver.org/#what-should-i-do-if-i-update-my-own-dependencies-without-changing-the-public-api > ) > > this proposal has no changes to the Accumulo public API, it is an update > to > > our dependencies - and would not require a major version change. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Sean Busbey [mailto:bus...@cloudera.com.INVALID] > > Sent: Friday, November 01, 2019 3:52 AM > > To: dev@accumulo apache. org <dev@accumulo.apache.org> > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Proposal to release version 1.10 > > > > -1 no dropping supported java versions in a minor release. if we want > > folks to move to java 8 then we should make it easier to upgrade to > > Accumulo 2.y > > > > On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 7:37 PM Ed Coleman <edcole...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > As suggested in the LTS discussion ([LAZY][VOTE] A basic, but > > > concrete, LTS proposal), I'm breaking this out to as a separate thread > > > to keep the topic distinct. > > > > > > > > > The proposal - I would like to start the formal release process for a > > > 1.10 version that would change the java language level to java 8. The > > > release would be based on the current 1.9 branch and would be released > > > instead of a 1.9.4. The 1.10 release would not contain additional > > > feature changes that are not present in the current 1.9 branch. > > > Currently, this would be based on the commit SHA: > > > > > > > > > 328ffa0849981e0f113dfbf539c832b447e06902 - committed Thu Oct 10. > > > > > > > > > (I am unaware of any bug-fixes or issues in the pipe line that would / > > > should be included - but hopefully this makes the intention clear.) > > > > > > > > > The goal is to provide a candidate for LTS nomination that is based on > > > the current 1.9.x code, but unifies our currently supported branches > > > to all use java 8 as the supported language level. While this had been > > > discussed in the past, enough time has passed that a java 8 > > > requirement now, seems to me, to be unlikely to impact any customers > > > that would look to upgrade Accumulo past a 1.9.3 version and have them > > not running at least java 8. > > > Having our code base with a modern, unified java language support > > > level would greatly benefit our development and reduce the burden to > > > support our multiple branches. > > > > > > > > > This vote will be held open for at least the standard 72 hours. > > > > > > > > -- > > busbey > > > > >
