We can make a vote to validate it official. I have no objection to start the compliance with CI since there seems to no have opposition/restraint expressed
Gil On 03/01/23 11:03, Jacques Le Roux wrote: > Thanks Gil! > > Hi All, should we start a vote about releasing 22.01.01 under Gradle 7.6 and > JDK 17? > > Maybe before we could run 22.01 under Gradle 7.6 and JDK 17 in GitHub Action, > BuildBot (ie OFBiz CI) and demos as proposed by OFBIZ-12729? > > We can also do both, because voting and releasing would take some time. > > What do you think? > > Thanks > > Jacques > > Le 03/01/2023 à 09:34, gil.portenseigne a écrit : > > Hello Jacques, > > > > +1 to release with Gradle 7.6 and JDK 17, that'd be great ! > > > > Thanks, > > > > Gil > > On 02/01/23 11:15, Jacques Le Roux wrote: > > > Hi Nicolas, All, > > > > > > Thanks Nicolas for your opinions. I'm surprised that we are only 5 to > > > express opinions about this important decision. > > > > > > Is nobody else interested ? > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > Jacques > > > > > > > > > Le 30/12/2022 à 16:04, Nicolas Malin a écrit : > > > > Hello Jacques, > > > > > > > > I did the migration from my part with your suggest and I confirm that > > > > ofbiz test passed with success. I also didn't detect any problem on > > > > standard process for ordering and invoicing during manual simulation. > > > > > > > > However, I didn't realize any loading test. > > > > > > > > So no worries from my part to move forward. > > > > > > > > Thanks for the works ! > > > > > > > > Nicolas > > > > > > > > > > > > On 22/12/2022 19:02, Jacques Le Roux wrote: > > > > > Hi Team, > > > > > > > > > > So far, we have only Michael's, Eugen's and Daniel's opinions about > > > > > releasing the 22.01.01 version under Gradle 7.6 and JDK 17 > > > > > (OFBIZ-12400). > > > > > > > > > > To summarize, Michael is against, Eugen and Daniel are for. Daniel > > > > > suggests that we can use workarounds but need to later update OFBiz > > > > > to handle strong encapsulation. > > > > > > > > > > Michael, I was surprised by your opinion, because of > > > > > https://markmail.org/message/fq3fpxeg5yfshjwz where you said 1 year > > > > > ago: > > > > > > > > > > <<I am also in favor of a 22.01. branch and releasing a first > > > > > stable version during the year 2022.>> > > > > > > > > > > And that led me to closely verify the situation. Fortunately, after > > > > > OFBIZ-12726 (integration tests), I believe we can trust using Gradle > > > > > 7.6 and JDK 17 by using temporary workarounds. > > > > > > > > > > So my question is, should we vote for releasing the 22.01.01 version > > > > > under Gradle 7.6 and JDK 17 or should we wait 22.01.02? > > > > > > > > > > I have decided on my side to update GH, BuildBot and demos to run > > > > > under Gradle 7.6 and JDK 17. If nobody is against of course. > > > > > This will take some time, but I don't expect much. For that we need > > > > > to push the workarounds in all supported branches. It's not a big > > > > > deal: > > > > > > > > > > - // jdk.serialFilter is to "Prevent possible DOS attack done > > > > > using Java deserialisation" (OFBIZ-12592) > > > > > applicationDefaultJvmArgs = project.hasProperty('jvmArgs') > > > > > ? jvmArgs.tokenize() > > > > > - : > > > > > ['-Xms128M','-Xmx1024M','-Djdk.serialFilter=maxarray=100000;maxdepth=20;maxrefs=1000;maxbytes=500000'] > > > > > + : ['-Xms128M','-Xmx1024M', > > > > > + > > > > > '-Djdk.serialFilter=maxarray=100000;maxdepth=20;maxrefs=1000;maxbytes=500000', > > > > > // OFBIZ-12592 and OFBIZ-12716 > > > > > + '--add-exports=java.base/sun.util.calendar=ALL-UNNAMED', // > > > > > OFBIZ-12721 > > > > > + '--add-opens=java.base/java.util=ALL-UNNAMED' // > > > > > OFBIZ-12726 > > > > > + ] > > > > > > > > > > To release w/o the workarounds it is enough to remove the 2 > > > > > "ALL-UNNAMED" lines. > > > > > > > > > > It also would be great to freeze a 23.01 branch and use it as next > > > > > demos while replacing the 18.12 by 22.01 as stable. > > > > > > > > > > Looking forward for opinions... > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > Jacques > > > > >
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
