Hi, I just wanted to note that I opened LUCENE-10578.
Maybe it'd be worth having the discussion in Jira?


2022年5月18日(水) 18:31 Alan Woodward <romseyg...@gmail.com>:

> I think this release is the first time I’ve used Java 11 since 2019, yes!
>
> I’ll get the latest AdoptOpenJDK version and try and persuade my Mac to
> use it...
>
> > On 18 May 2022, at 10:19, Dawid Weiss <dawid.we...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Living in the past, aren't we? :)
> >
> > D.
> >
> > On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 10:49 AM Alan Woodward <romseyg...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> $ /Library/Java/JavaVirtualMachines/jdk-11.jdk/Contents/Home/bin/java
> -version
> >>
> >> openjdk version "11" 2018-09-25
> >> OpenJDK Runtime Environment 18.9 (build 11+28)
> >> OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM 18.9 (build 11+28, mixed mode)
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 18 May 2022, at 09:35, Dawid Weiss <dawid.we...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Alan, what's the exact JDK vendor/ release number you used that had
> >>> this problem? If we can reproduce it then we'd know where to look
> >>> (bisect until we know javadoc works correctly).
> >>>
> >>> D.
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 10:33 AM Dawid Weiss <dawid.we...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I'd like to draw attention to my second question while we are still
> here... should we limit the OpenJDK distribution (for building)? My worry
> here is, that minor versions could depend on the distributor.
> >>>>
> >>>> This is a valid concern but it'd take some trial and error to verify
> >>>> which version numbers are used by packaging openjdk for various
> >>>> releases. Realistically, the JDK part (standard library) is nearly the
> >>>> same in all/ most of them? The least that could be done is to apply
> >>>> the restriction to just a particular vendor/ release and emit a
> >>>> warning for unrecognized ones.
> >>>>
> >>>> Dawid
> >>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>
>

Reply via email to