+1, Looks good to me
Regards, Deepak Joseph On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 6:05 PM Kusuma Latha <[email protected]> wrote: > Yeah , I agree with you Tibor. > > +1 > > > On Mon, 29 Sep 2025 at 4:52 PM, Tibor Zimányi <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi everyone, > > > > I checked the repositories and Phase 1 looks done. Thanks for everyone > > involved. Now we can go ahead for the Phase 2. Here is my proposal for > it: > > - All PR checks are moved to Java 21. > > - New PR check is introduced for each repository, that will build and > test > > the changes with Java 17. > > - Release pipelines are updated to use Java 21. > > > > What do you think, please? This may be influenced by another thread on > the > > mailing list - about 10.2.0 release. To not have impact on the release, I > > propose these changes to be done after 10.2.0 is released. > > > > Best regards, > > Tibor > > > > On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 9:31 AM Tibor Zimányi <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Paolo, > > > > > > the first phase should be done, I just didn't have time to double check > > > everything, yet, due to my job related workload. I plan to do that till > > the > > > end of the month. Then there will be a proposal about the phase 2. > > > > > > Thank you very much for reminding me. > > > > > > Best regards, > > > Tibor > > > > > > Dňa št 18. 9. 2025, 8:51 Paolo Bizzarri <[email protected]> > napísal(a): > > > > > >> Hi Tibor, > > >> > > >> I am not sure which is the status for this much appreciated proposal. > > >> > > >> I can see that we had commits in drools and kogito runtimes about > > >> supporting java 21, so maybe this has been already completed? > > >> > > >> Thanks again for all the effort. > > >> > > >> Regards > > >> > > >> Paolo > > >> > > >> > > >> < > > >> > > > https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail > > >> > > > >> Privo > > >> di virus.www.avast.com > > >> < > > >> > > > https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail > > >> > > > >> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > > >> > > >> On Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 3:03 PM Tibor Zimányi <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > >> > > >> > Hi everyone, > > >> > > > >> > thanks everyone for feedback! I see there are no objections to this > > and > > >> > someone mentioned to me (I think Jason and Tiago) that if there are > no > > >> > objections, we don't need a vote. So if there will be no objections > to > > >> > continue with this without a vote until the end of today, I will let > > >> people > > >> > that are already involved in this task to start contributing by > > opening > > >> PRs > > >> > in the relevant repositories. > > >> > > > >> > For the PR checks, I will send a more detailed proposal for the > Phase > > >> 2. I > > >> > think Phase 1 can happen without the need to change CI anyhow, as we > > >> want > > >> > to target also Java 17 compatibility. I agree, it would be good to > > have > > >> PR > > >> > checks for both Java 17 and 21 in the future. It will be part of the > > >> Phase > > >> > 2 proposal. > > >> > > > >> > Best regards, > > >> > Tibor > > >> > > > >> > On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 10:07 PM Jason Porter < > > [email protected]> > > >> > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > I agree to this as well. I know it isn't ideal, but as Tiago > stated > > >> > > running PRs on both versions of Java is the only way to be sure we > > >> don't > > >> > > break one of the versions. > > >> > > > > >> > > On 2025/07/31 19:59:12 Tiago Bento wrote: > > >> > > > I definitely agree that we need to move the code base to Java > 21. > > >> > > > Thanks Tibor for the proposal. Because we want to keep Java 17 > > being > > >> > > > supported, I think our only guarantee would be to have builds > > >> running > > >> > > > in both versions for PR checks. Otherwise we risk breaking one > of > > >> the > > >> > > > versions and only finding out when it's already too late. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 7:39 AM Deepak Joseph < > > >> > [email protected]> > > >> > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > +1 I agree with this proposal to make code buildable and > > runnable > > >> > with > > >> > > Java > > >> > > > > 21 > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Regards, > > >> > > > > Deepak Joseph > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 1:35 PM Yeser Amer <[email protected]> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Thank you for the clarification, +1 (and I'm available to > help > > >> in > > >> > > this > > >> > > > > > effort) > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > On 2025/07/31 07:52:36 Tibor Zimányi wrote: > > >> > > > > > > Hi, > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > thanks for the feedback. It is basically as Francisco > wrote. > > >> We > > >> > > have > > >> > > > > > Maven > > >> > > > > > > properties configured with 17, but there was no > coordinated > > >> > effort > > >> > > yet to > > >> > > > > > > find out if everything works also on 21. This proposal is > > >> about > > >> > > it. There > > >> > > > > > > may be multiple things not working with 21, as e.g. > > mentioned > > >> in > > >> > > GWT, or > > >> > > > > > > there may be some enforcer rules around jdks etc. This > > effort > > >> > > should make > > >> > > > > > > sure everything is buildable and runnable on both Java 21 > > and > > >> > Java > > >> > > 17. > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > For the PR checks, I think we can have a broader > discussion > > >> if we > > >> > > agree > > >> > > > > > on > > >> > > > > > > this one and when we get to the point of starting the > Phase > > >> 2. I > > >> > > am not > > >> > > > > > > against having a Java 17 PR check, it may be useful. It > just > > >> > needs > > >> > > to be > > >> > > > > > > scoped properly (e.g. I expect not all PR checks are > needed > > as > > >> > > Java 17 > > >> > > > > > ones > > >> > > > > > > etc.). > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Hope that clarifies. > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Best regards, > > >> > > > > > > Tibor > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 9:36 AM Yeser Amer < > > [email protected]> > > >> > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Dmitrii, > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > At that moment, I experimented with GWT 2.10. Indeed it > > >> could > > >> > be > > >> > > worth > > >> > > > > > > > trying again with 2.12, thank you for pointing that. > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On 2025/07/30 17:40:46 Dmitrii Tikhomirov wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > > This is strange, because at present GWT’s minimum Java > > >> > version > > >> > > is 11, > > >> > > > > > > > and the supported source level is 17. As far as I > > >> understand, > > >> > it > > >> > > should > > >> > > > > > > > work with version 21 as well > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/gwtproject/gwt/releases/tag/2.12.0 >  > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > On Jul 30, 2025, at 7:59 AM, Yeser Amer < > > >> [email protected]> > > >> > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Right, it makes sense. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > A point to share is that we have all GWT modules > with > > >> that > > >> > > property > > >> > > > > > > > set to JDK 8, because I failed to compile our GWT > sources > > >> with > > >> > > any JDK > > >> > > > > > 8+, > > >> > > > > > > > when I tried some months ago. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > On 2025/07/30 14:49:05 Francisco Javier Tirado Sarti > > >> wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > > >> I was going to say that, as far as I know, all > > modules > > >> > > should be > > >> > > > > > set > > >> > > > > > > > to 17 > > >> > > > > > > > > >> now. Anyway, the task is to verify that assumption > is > > >> > true. > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> On Wed, Jul 30, 2025 at 4:43 PM Yeser Amer < > > >> > > [email protected]> > > >> > > > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> Tibor, > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> Thank you for your initiative, can you please > > clarify: > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Phase 1: > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> - Setting the release property: > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <maven.compiler.release>17</maven.compiler.release>. > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> That means that we currently have some modules > with > > >> JDK > > >> > > version > > >> > > > > > < 17, > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> right? > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Phase 2: > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> - Update the KIE CI to use Java 21 by default. > This > > >> > means: > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> - Making sure PR checks run with Java 21. > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> - Making sure the release builds run with Java > > 21. > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> If I understood correctly, we have to support both > > >> JDK 17 > > >> > > and > > >> > > > > > JDK 21 > > >> > > > > > > > for a > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> while. Should we expect to have 2 subsets of PR > > >> Checks, > > >> > > one that > > >> > > > > > runs > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> against JDK 17 and one that compiles against JDK > 21 > > >> > > (optaplanner > > >> > > > > > is > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> correctly doing that against JDK 17 and 20)? > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> Thanks > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> Yeser > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> On 2025/07/30 11:54:23 Tibor Zimányi wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Hi everyone, > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> as Java 21 is the latest Java LTS available, > > already > > >> for > > >> > > some > > >> > > > > > time, > > >> > > > > > > > I > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> would > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> like to propose that the code should be buildable > > and > > >> > > runnable > > >> > > > > > with > > >> > > > > > > > Java > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> 21, while still retaining compatibility with Java > > 17. > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> The work should be split into two phases like > this: > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Phase 1: > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> - Setting the release property: > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <maven.compiler.release>17</maven.compiler.release>. > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> - This should make sure the code works with > Java > > >> 17. > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> - This should make sure that the existing CI > > still > > >> > > works the > > >> > > > > > > > same way > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> and is able to build releases etc., because even > if > > >> we > > >> > > have > > >> > > > > > Java 17 > > >> > > > > > > > as a > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> build environment, with the setting, it should > > work. > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> - Fixing the problems that occur while trying to > > >> build > > >> > the > > >> > > > > > > > repositories > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> with Java 21 and are caused by Java 21. > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> - Fixing the problems that occur while running > > tests > > >> > with > > >> > > Java > > >> > > > > > 21 > > >> > > > > > > > and are > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> caused by Java 21. > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> - Updating the images we publish and need JDK to > > >> contain > > >> > > JDK 21 > > >> > > > > > > > instead > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> of > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> 17. > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> - Target of the work are all Apache KIE > > repositories, > > >> > > mainly: > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> incubator-kie-drools, incubator-kie-optaplanner, > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> incubator-kie-kogito-runtimes, > > >> > incubator-kie-kogito-apps, > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> incubator-kie-kogito-examples, > incubator-kie-tools. > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Phase 2: > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> - Update the KIE CI to use Java 21 by default. > This > > >> > means: > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> - Making sure PR checks run with Java 21. > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> - Making sure the release builds run with Java > > 21. > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> What do you think, please? I plan to open a vote > on > > >> > Monday > > >> > > > > > based on > > >> > > > > > > > the > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> feedback of this discussion. Finding people to do > > >> this > > >> > > work is > > >> > > > > > > > already > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> done, at least for Phase 1. > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Best regards, > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Tibor > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > >> [email protected] > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: > > >> [email protected] > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > [email protected] > > >> > > > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > > >> [email protected] > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > >> > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > [email protected] > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > >> > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > >> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > >> > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >
