We can have several CI jobs that check the code base against any future JDK version (even against variants from different providers. Failures to build/run test could lead to JIRA tickets to follow up.
Best regards, Pierre Smits *Apache Trafodion <https://trafodion.apache.org>, Vice President* *Apache Directory <https://directory.apache.org>, PMC Member* Apache Incubator <https://incubator.apache.org>, committer *Apache OFBiz <https://ofbiz.apache.org>, contributor (without privileges) since 2008* Apache Steve <https://steve.apache.org>, committer On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 10:02 AM Taher Alkhateeb <slidingfilame...@gmail.com> wrote: > I see no problem in sticking with 8. It would also probably be > beneficial to get the code base to be compatible with Java 11 so that > people who want to upgrade are not restricted from doing so (which we > have done already). In other words, like Scott said, it should be a > "minimum" instead of a "maximum". When we were trying to upgrade we > faced some obstacles and resolved them. which means this needs to be a > task regularly done. > > So we could perhaps regularly create JIRAs like "Ensure OFBiz can > operate on Java version X" so that the code base is always forward > compatible. > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 11:57 AM Scott Gray > <scott.g...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote: > > > > Reasons to increase the minimum version: > > - compelling new features > > - end of support of current minimum > > > > Reasons to not increase the minimum: > > - potential instability of new version > > - complicates the life of users and contributors who still use the > existing > > minimum > > - lack of expertise in configuring and using new features > > > > I think every few months we should discuss it but I don't think it's > worth > > shifting any time soon. The pros need to outweigh the cons, and > personally > > I don't really see it at the moment. > > > > The end of support date for 11 probably shouldn't be a consideration at > > this point, by the time we even get close to that java 23 LTS will > probably > > be a year old :) > > > > Regards > > Scott > > > > On Tue, 16 Apr 2019, 00:50 Michael Brohl, <michael.br...@ecomify.de> > wrote: > > > > > Ah, sorry Taher if I was not clear enough. > > > > > > Yes, I think we should do the switch to Adopt Open JDK 8 LTS now for > > > trunk, 18.12 and 17.12 to make the project independent from the short > > > cycled releases of the Oracle JDK and the subscription for use of the > > > Oracle JDK 8 LTS. > > > > > > I just recognized that Adopt JDK 11 LTS will be available until Sept. > > > 2022. If that is not a mistake I have to refine the timeline: we can > > > then switch to Adopt Open JDK 11 LTS on trunk right before the release > > > branch for 19.x is created. I guess that the future LTS releases will > > > have support for at least 4 years. > > > > > > That means we would remain Java 8 compatible for the releases 16 to 18 > > > and announce the Java 11 dependency for release 19 and up. This should > > > give users enough time to plan, test and migrate. > > > > > > Users could work with release branch 19.x on Open JDK 11 for 2,5 years > > > then. > > > > > > For the future, I would suggest to introduce a new Open JDK LTS version > > > about 3-6 months after the first release, we might want to create a new > > > release branch in the course of this. > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Michael Brohl > > > > > > ecomify GmbH - www.ecomify.de > > > > > > > > > Am 15.04.19 um 13:25 schrieb Taher Alkhateeb: > > > > Hi Michael, > > > > > > > > So just to understand your suggestion clearly. Are you recommending > > > > that we switch from oracle JDK to open JDK now (in 18 and trunk) and > > > > introduce open jdk 11 in 2021? > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 11:46 AM Michael Brohl < > michael.br...@ecomify.de> > > > wrote: > > > >> Hi Scott, all, > > > >> > > > >> yes, Adopt Open JDK 8 LTS is supported at least untile September > 2023 > > > [1] > > > >> > > > >> Thinking about this a bit more I second to stay with Open JDK 8 LTS > for > > > >> release branches 17.12, 18.12 and trunk for now. > > > >> > > > >> Professional users/ companies have a very conservative update > strategy > > > >> for base technologies like the JDK and we should support it as long > as > > > >> it is reasonable. > > > >> > > > >> So, my suggestion would be to introduce Adopt Open JDK 11 LTS with > the > > > >> release branch 21.x, meaning that we change to JDK 11 right before > the > > > >> release branch will be created. This gives us plenty of time to test > > > >> with Java 11 and we can introduce Java 11 features in the trunk > after > > > >> that. So release branch 22.x would be the first to depend on Java > 11. > > > >> > > > >> What do you think? > > > >> > > > >> Best regards, > > > >> > > > >> Michael Brohl > > > >> > > > >> ecomify GmbH - www.ecomify.de > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> [1] https://adoptopenjdk.net/support.html > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Am 15.04.19 um 00:07 schrieb Scott Gray: > > > >>> My understanding was that openjdk would support java 8 until 2023. > > > >>> > > > >>> In the past our strategy used to be that we should ensure the code > base > > > >>> would operate on newer java versions but keep our minimum required > > > version > > > >>> as low as possible. That effectively allows users to run whatever > > > version > > > >>> they like. So unless there are some compelling new features in > java > > > >>> 9/10/11 that we think we must have, I'd prefer it if we kept our > > > minimum > > > >>> supported version as low as possible. > > > >>> > > > >>> For myself, all client projects are still running java 8 (openjdk) > so > > > >>> before I could continue contributing to OFBiz I would have to > figure > > > out > > > >>> how to run both versions on my machine with minimal disruption. > Since > > > I > > > >>> don't have a huge amount of spare time, I would probably just put > it > > > off > > > >>> for quite a while and work on other things. > > > >>> > > > >>> I'm not trying to veto the idea, if the community wants to proceed > > > then it > > > >>> should but I doubt I'm the only contributor we'd be putting another > > > hurdle > > > >>> in front of. > > > >>> > > > >>> Regards > > > >>> Scott > > > >>> > > > >>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2019 at 09:09, Taher Alkhateeb < > > > slidingfilame...@gmail.com> > > > >>> wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>>> Well, I could be mistaken but it seems EOL for java 8 is coming > soon > > > (2019 > > > >>>> commercial 2020 personal) [1]. This seems to be the case because > the > > > new > > > >>>> LTS is out which is java 11. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Also this new release model from oracle seems to be annoying > which is > > > >>>> pushing developers to adopt the openjdk instead. So I guess the > > > reason for > > > >>>> the upgrade is to strike two birds with one stone: upgrade java > and > > > switch > > > >>>> to openjdk. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> With that being said, I don't have a firm opinion on upgrading > and I > > > just > > > >>>> wanted to highlight things, I leave it to other folks to decide. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> [1] > > > https://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/java-se-support-roadmap.html > > > >>>> > > > >>>> On Sun, Apr 14, 2019, 10:38 PM Scott Gray < > > > scott.g...@hotwaxsystems.com> > > > >>>> wrote: > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> That would probably halt any further contributions from me in the > > > short > > > >>>> to > > > >>>>> medium term. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Can I ask why we need to require 11 when 8 is supported through > to > > > 2023? > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Regards > > > >>>>> Scott > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> On Sun, 14 Apr 2019, 23:37 Jacques Le Roux, < > > > >>>> jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> > > > >>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> If nobody disagree, I'll make the last move (ie ask for Java 11 > in > > > >>>>>> build.gradle) in 3 days > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Jacques > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Le 13/04/2019 à 12:34, Nicolas Malin a écrit : > > > >>>>>>> On 13/04/2019 11:47, Jacques Le Roux wrote: > > > >>>>>>>> I just tested, without surprise the trunk HEAD works with > Java 11 > > > >>>>>>> I did the same with 18.12, works fine > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> Nicolas > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >
