On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 at 12:48, Svata Dedic <svatopluk.de...@gmail.com> wrote: > But it requires some degree of cooperation, which seem to be rejected > upfront. ... > But again, that assumes some degree of honest cooperation/respect from > the progressive majority - but given the past communication, throwing > obstacles in the way could easily happen,
This conversation has been going on (again) since Jan 10 - https://lists.apache.org/thread/lgvp1pw0n6tpjnx7vny0ltqmpfm48sbo The issue that initiated that thread, and linked in the background, was just one illustration of the extra overhead in continued support of JDK 8. That thread was a chance for one of the people advocating continued JDK 8 support to jump in and help. Instead it was Matthias and myself that resolved the issues. This is not the first time, and one reason I find it hard to believe that the workload will not land on others. In that thread incidentally, Martin stated on Jan 12 (and has confirmed elsewhere) that dropping JDK 8 is not a concern for VSIX?! The proposal in this thread has a lot in common with what Matthias said two months ago - https://lists.apache.org/thread/jc78h8678tbnycfg2wlwtvknctcs0n8n It takes from that, and other comments from active contributors - and I did prioritize the active ones! From that thread, and elsewhere, as well as trying to accommodate the Android fans and others. It was passed around those, and the release team, for feedback and clarification in advance of this thread. You commented a month ago expressing a -0.5 for the JDK 8 aspect (and a -infinity for the other! :-) ). You were asked questions and for clarifications - I *really* wanted to try and consider your concerns before starting this thread. I also said that there are very strong reasons to resolve this one way or the other before NB18 freeze - there are significant implications for releases either way the decision goes. TL;DR - some degree of cooperation has never been rejected by anyone, but more involvement would have been useful. I agree with a lot of your action points, incidentally, and think they should still be looked at. > manifested in declaring the > effort "DeadBeans" by a PMC member. Probably unfortunate. OTOH, when people continually point to the same wiki page like it's not been read, understood, even implemented, it's also unfortunate. At the end of this, we all still have to work together. > What's funny is that similar tricks could allow us to modernize the > *source code* to the newest supported JDK (LTS) while gracefuly > degrading for the rest of supported JDKs (yes, without the hated > Frgaal), whatever LTS-1 or LTS-2 policy is in the place. But it's too > easy and self-pleasing to just laugh. No, but if it involves using nb-javac then it's also probably not going to fly here, for a number of reasons that others have raised before. Best wishes, Neil --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@netbeans.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@netbeans.apache.org For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
