As Philippe finds it useful too. I will vote -1
We should do another rc. @vladimir is the release plugin ready to use with the changed sha512 files? Felix Am 24. Oktober 2019 21:23:27 MESZ schrieb Milamber <[email protected]>: > >I can cancel the RC4 vote or a PMC member can put a -1 (veto) to the >release. >Currently if I count my (future) vote +1 and the 2 +1 from Vladimir and > >Philippe, the RC4 will pass the vote. > >What is your (PMC member) preference? > >On 23/10/2019 16:28, Philippe Mouawad wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I think we should do another rc restoring browser component. >> >> I find it helpful when debugging a script. >> >> So unless there is a blocker, it should be restored. >> >> Thanks >> >> On Wednesday, October 23, 2019, Felix Schumacher < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Am 23.10.19 um 15:12 schrieb Vladimir Sitnikov: >>>>> I already use the Oracle Java 8 to build the releases (RC4 >include) >>>> Well. By "Require release manager" I mean **every** release >manager. >>>> For instance, I have not purchased Java license from Oracle. Does >that >>> mean >>>> I must buy one in order to be the release manager? >>> You don't have to buy a license to use the last openly available JDK >8 >>> from Oracle. But it might be difficult to download it. (I found a >link >>> to the archive under the FAQ from the download for Java 8. >>> https://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/archive-139210.html ) >>>> The next question is what if someone downloads JMeter sources and >tries >>> to >>>> build it? >>> That depends -- as earlier -- on the version of used Java. At the >moment >>> you will only get a working JavaFX control, if you use Oracle JDK 8 >>> (plus the parameter). >>>> Does that mean they must use Oracle Java? >>> No (if they are not interested in that special control) >>>> Does that mean they should get build failure when using builds like >>>> AdoptOpenJDK? >>> No (it didn't with the ant build -- I think we checked for a JavaFX >>> class on the classpath to decide whether we should compile it) >>>> The current implementation is "JavaFX opt-in". >>> At the moment I tend to include it on building the release, but I >have >>> sympathy with your arguments, that JavaFX is really difficult to use >at >>> build/run time. >>> >>> I am less sure with every time we are talking about it, that it is >>> valuable enough to keep the feature. >>> >>> But if we drop it now from the release, we should mention it in the >>> change logs and hope that someone comes up with an alternative, that >we >>> can include some day. >>> >>> Felix >>> >>>> Vladimir >>>>
