AFAIK spring 6 and spring-boot 3 have jumped to java17 directly, so if we want to upgrade, I also suggest that we jump to java 17 directly.
While upgrading to java 17 can reduce our compatibility work on branch-3+, but consider the widely usage for java 8, I think we still need to support branch-2 for several years, then this will increase the compatibility work as the code between branch-3+ and branch-2.x will be more and more different. So for me, a workable solution is 1. We first claim that branch-3+ will move minimum java support to 11 or 17. 2. Start to move the compilation to java 11 or 17, but still keep release version 8, and still keep the pre commit pipeline to run java 8, 11, 17, to minimum our compatibility work before we have the first 3.0.0 release. 3. Cut branch-3.0 and release 3.0.0, so we have a 3.0.0 release, actually which can still run on java 8, so it will be easier for our users to upgrade to 3.x and reduce our pressure on maintaining branch-2, especially do not need to back port new features there. 4. Start to move the release version to 11 or 17 on branch-3+, and prepare for 3.1.0 release, which will be the real 11 or 17 only release. Thanks. Bryan Beaudreault <bbeaudrea...@apache.org>于2024年4月30日 周二02:54写道： > I am a huge +1 for dropping java8. > > One reason I would suggest going to 17 is that it seems so hard to change > these things given our long development cycle on major releases. There are > some nice language features in 17, but more importantly is that the initial > release of java11 was released 6 years ago and java17 released 3 years. > Java21 is already released as well. So I could see java17 being widely > available enough that we could jump "in the middle" rather than to the > oldest LTS. > > I will say that we're already running java 21 on all of our hbase/hadoop in > prod (70 clusters, 7k regionservers). I know not every organization can be > that aggressive, and I wouldn't suggest jumping to 21 in the codebase. Just > pointing it out in terms of basic support already existing and being > stable. > > On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 2:33 PM Andrew Purtell <andrew.purt...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > I also agree that mitigation of security problems in dependencies will be > > increasingly difficult, as we cannot expect our dependencies to continue > to > > support Java 8. They might, but as time goes on it is less likely. > > > > A minimum of Java 11 makes a lot of sense. This is where the center of > > gravity of the Java ecosystem is, probably. > > > > A minimum of 17 is aggressive and I don’t see the point unless there is a > > feature in 17 that we would like to base an improvement on. > > > > > On Apr 29, 2024, at 1:23 PM, chrajeshbab...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > Hi! > > > > > > With 3.0 on the horizon, we could look into bumping the minimum > required > > > Java version for HBase. > > > > > > The last discussion I could find was four years ago, when dropping 8.0 > > > support was rejected. > > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/ph8xry0x37cvjj89fp2jk1k48yb7gs46 > > > > > > Now it's four years later, and the end of OpenJDK support for Java 8 > and > > 11 > > > are much closer. > > > (Oracle public support is so short that I consider that irrelevant) > > > > > > Some critical dependencies (like Jetty) have ended even regular > security > > > support for Java 8. > > > > > > By supporting Java 8 we are alse limiting ourselves to using an already > > 10 > > > year old Java release, ignoring any developments in the language. > > > > > > My take is that with the current dogmatic emphasis on CVE mitigation > the > > > benefits of bumping the required JDK version outweigh the benefits even > > for > > > the legacy install base, especially it's getting harder and harder to > be > > > CVE free with Java 8. > > > > > > Furthermore, with RedHat dropping JDK11 support this year, I think we > > could > > > also consider bumping the minimum requirement straight to JDK 17. > > > > > > Hadoop is still on Java 8, but previously it has dropped Java 7 support > > in > > > a patch release, and I wouldn't be surprised if it dropped Java 8 in a > > > similar manner, so I would not put too much stock in that. > > > > > > What do you think ? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Rajeshbabu. > > >
