I know of projects that embed Zookeeper so I don't think it is (only) a matter of run/build time. I like what Mate said about announcing this switch today for a later major release (such as 4.0 that could come after 3.7) to give time to downstream applications to plan for this change.
Regards, Alessandro Luccaroni -----Messaggio originale----- Da: Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> Inviato: giovedì 22 ottobre 2020 15:58 A: dev@zookeeper.apache.org Oggetto: Re: [DISCUSS][PROPOSAL] Require JDK 11 to build for 3.7 Allesandro, Would your answer be different if you considered a strategy that allows JRE8 to run ZK but requires JDK11 to build it? On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 6:36 AM Szalay-Bekő Máté <szalay.beko.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello All, > > A few reflections: > > - I don't think that backporting fixes from a JDK 11 only version to a > JDK > 8 compatible version would be necessarily a harder thing than any > regular backport. It kind of depends on us (whether we use many JDK 11 > only features or not until we drop JDK 8 from all supported versions). > Also if it gets more painful, then we can decide to limit the number > of backported commits (e.g. only strictly to security fixes / CVEs) > - But even if the above point is true (?), I would not do this cut (e.g. > moving entirely to JDK 11 only) in a minor release. I think this > should be a major change in 4.0. (maybe together with other more > "risky" changes, like the separation of the client and server > artifacts/code; or some incompatible changes in the leader election > protocol. Although these are separate discussions) > - So all-in-all I like the JDK 11 only option the most. But I wouldn't > do it in 3.7 (which might happen very soon), but rather in 4.0. The > question for me is wether to do any in-between step in 3.x. (like the > options 1 or 2 above in Christopher's mail). I think it mainly should > depend on the timing of 4.0. > > Kind regards, > Mate > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 3:05 PM Flavio Junqueira <f...@apache.org> wrote: > > > There are three points that stand out for me in this thread: > > > > - How do we determine how such a change affects our user base? > > - How much effort do the different options induce with respect to > > maintenance? > > - What's the right timeline for changes and how do we communicate > > them so that our users have enough time to prepare? > > > > Someone mentioned a PMC vote, and I don't think this should be a > > closed vote, independent of how the conversation goes. > > > > -Flavio > > > > > On 22 Oct 2020, at 08:39, Alessandro Luccaroni - Diennea > > <alessandro.luccar...@diennea.com.INVALID> wrote: > > > > > > Hi all, > > > If I might chime in as a zookeeper user (in multiple products) and > > > a > > follower of the project I think the drop of Java8 support (official > and/or > > unofficial) could be a big mistake. > > > > > > From my own company point of view we already support Java11 in all > > > our > > applications so we are not directly impacted (and we have upgrade > > path > for > > older versions to provide to our customers). > > > My worries resides in the (high) probability of a userbase > > fragmentation: in the recent past Zookeeper development picked up > > speed thanks to a bunch of new committers and PMCs after a period of > > mostly maintenance focused works, but the number of active > > committers and PMCs > is > > still very low for a project like this. > > > > > > I foresee the risk of spreading thin the resources of the project > > > if we > > force the userbase to stick to an older version and, in turn, we are > forced > > to backport many issue to the 3.6 branch. > > > > > > Alessandro Luccaroni > > > Platform Manager @ Diennea - MagNews > > > Tel.: (+39) 0546 066100 Int. 924 - Mob.: (+39) 393 7273519 Viale > > > G.Marconi 30/14 - 48018 Faenza (RA) - Italy > > > > > > -----Messaggio originale----- > > > Da: Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> > > > Inviato: giovedì 22 ottobre 2020 05:21 > > > A: dev@zookeeper.apache.org > > > Oggetto: Re: [DISCUSS][PROPOSAL] Require JDK 11 to build for 3.7 > > > > > > I'm happy that this discussion has been so lively! I just want to > > emphasize a few things: > > > > > > I really do understand the desire to continue to support Java 8... > > > I > get > > it. But all the conversations around this seem based on what people > > are doing *today*. But, ZK 3.7 is *tomorrow's* version... a > > > *future* release... so it should be based more on reasonable > > expectations for users in the future, and less based on what is > > happening today. I suspect *most* people today are still using 3.4 > > anyway (it was just so stable for so long...), but that shouldn't > > mean the developers should hold back development on 3.5 and 3.6, any > > more than today's users > of > > 3.5/3.6 should hold back 3.7. > > > > > > Some of the opinions expressed in this discussion seem to propose > > > a > > scenario where users are going to be updating to "bleeding edge" > > > versions of ZooKeeper, but are going to insist on using Java 8. > > > Personally, I find this to be implausible. In my experience, > > > people > > either upgrade everything as soon as they are able to, or they > > upgrade > each > > thing individually, only when they are forced to. The first group > > will be happy to move to Java 11 and ZK 3.7. The second group will > > probably avoid > > 3.7 anyway, and are fine sticking with 3.6, but if they had to > > update to 3.7, they'd also be fine updating to Java 11 if they had > > to in order to > use > > 3.7. I can't imagine the scenario where people are eagerly choosing > > to upgrade to ZK 3.7, but miserly insisting on using Java 8. Perhaps > > that scenario exists, but it's hard for me to imagine. Even so, my > > proposal would still support even that group of people. > > > > > > I think there are now effectively three proposals being discussed > > > in > > this thread: > > > > > > 1. (Christopher's original proposal) passively support Java 8 at > runtime > > by making JDK 11 the minimum requirement to build and test. > > > This scenario involves continuing to fix bugs, as they are > > > discovered > > and reported, that affect JDK 8, but passively, rather than proactively. > > This proposal does *not* drop Java 8 support, but merely > > de-emphasizes it in development of what will be 3.7 in the future, > > and drops the > requirement > > to do dedicated testing with Java 8. I think this is low risk, > > because it is very unlikely that the ZK devs would introduce a bug > > that would affect only Java 8 and the compiler wouldn't catch it... > > because the cross-compilation features of newer JDKs are really good. > > > > > > 2. (Enrico's alternate proposal) this variation of my proposal > > > would > > involve continuing to proactively support Java 8 by creating a > > dedicated testing suite to test client code on Java 8. I think this > > is a good > option, > > but since it involves a significantly higher amount of work than > > option > 1, > > I think the cost-benefit analysis would show this to be not worth > > the effort. Also, if it were implemented, it would need to be done > > carefully > to > > avoid requiring developers to have concurrently installed both Java > > 8 and Java 11 in order to perform a build, because requiring Java 8 > > at build > time > > while developing would be worse than we have today. > > > > > > 3. (Andor's preference) move to JDK 11 fully. This would provide > > > no > > support, passive or active, for Java 8 in ZK 3.7. To be honest, this > > is > my > > personal favorite, and is the simplest to implement and communicate > clearly > > to end users in release notes. The only reason I proposed a passive > support > > of Java 8 instead of this is because I was trying to seek a > > compromise > from > > the start. But, I think by far, this is the best option for the next > > *future* release of ZK. If you wanted to make the change even more > visible > > to users, the version could even be bumped to 4.0. > > > > > > If this were to come to a VOTE by the PMC, in order to make a > > > final > > decision, I would recommend they vote on option 3, and then if that > fails, > > vote on option 1, and if that fails, keep things the way they are > (because > > option 2 is more work). > > > > > > Christopher > > > > > > P.S. as for Hadoop on Java 11... I've been running Hadoop 3 on JDK > > > 11 > > and it works just fine there (as long as you add the missing runtime > > jar for javax.activation:javax.activation-api:1.2.0 to its class > > path, but > that > > was fixed in Hadoop 3.3). > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 5:42 PM Tamas Penzes > <tam...@cloudera.com.invalid> > > wrote: > > >> > > >> Hi All, > > >> > > >> I've just talked with a Hadoop/HDFS developer who told me what I > > guessed. > > >> With Hadoop3 they have just dropped JDK7 support, dropping JDK8 > > >> would mean a release of Hadoop4. > > >> Since HADOOP-15338 is finished, they test with JDK8 and JDK11 > > >> both. As of today most of the Hadoop users are still on Hadoop2, > > >> he doesn't expect > > >> Hadoop4 soon. > > >> As many Apache components depend on Hadoop and ZooKeeper they > > >> won't hurry to JDK11 until they have to (they will probably go > > >> one-by-one very slowly), which means if Hadoop stays on JDK8, > > >> they would use the last ZK version which works on JDK8. > > >> Do we want a ZK 3.4 again? > > >> > > >> Regards, Tamaas > > >> > > >> > > >> On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 11:23 PM Tamas Penzes > > >> <tam...@cloudera.com> > > wrote: > > >> > > >>> Hi All, > > >>> > > >>> Just to add my two cents. > > >>> > > >>> Upgrading to JDK11 looks inevitable sooner or later and I would > > >>> definitely not wait until 2030 or 2026 when the extended support > > >>> of > > JDK8 ends. > > >>> But on the other side I have to agree with Enrico and Patrick > > >>> that far too many users are tied to JDK8 yet (not because they > > >>> want to use JDK8, but because they have to), some of them are > > >>> components of the Hadoop ecosystem, which would be a loss to tie > > >>> them to 3.6.x for > > years. > > >>> Do we know the state of Hadoop? It builds with JDK8 at the > > >>> moment, but do we know what are their plans to go to JDK11? > > >>> When they move, we should move too, but I don't think it would > > >>> be wise to do it earlier. > > >>> > > >>> Christopher's option looks like the golden path, but it needs > > >>> some investment on the testing side as Enrico pointed it out. > > >>> Could we agree on it as a compromise? > > >>> > > >>> Regards, Tamaas > > >>> > > >>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 7:11 PM Brent > > >>> <brentwritesc...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> I think I was reacting to Enrico's earlier comment of: > > >>>> > > >>>> " ZooKeeper client is used by tons of users and unfortunately > > >>>> many projects are still on JDK8, if we move ZooKeeper to JDK11 > > >>>> the risk is to block users from the adoption, that is that we > > >>>> will see the world to stay on 3.6.x and we will have again a > > >>>> long lived release line, like 3.4." > > >>>> > > >>>> It's a matter of whether or not a long-lived release line is > > >>>> desirable/undesirable. If everyone is OK keeping 3.6.x > > >>>> up-to-date security/patch-wise (if not feature-wise) for the > > >>>> next N years, then that's a potentially valid approach. I > > >>>> interpreted that comment as "a long-lived release line is > > >>>> undesirable", but no one explicitly said that, I just read it that way. > > >>>> > > >>>> ~Brent > > >>>> > > >>>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 9:49 AM Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 9:03 AM Andor Molnar > > >>>>> <an...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> As far as I know Hbase, Solr and Kafka are already Java 11 ready. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> IMHO contributors of those projects should also put efforts > > >>>>>> into > > >>>> moving > > >>>>>> forward. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> We’re not saying that you _have_ to move to Java 11. > > >>>>>> Staying on Java 8? No problem, 3.6 is for you. > > >>>>>> Want the fancy new features of 3.7? Work on it on your side too. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> ppl want things like security fixes. I believe the highlighted > > >>>>> downside > > >>>> is > > >>>>> that we would need to continue to maintain 3.6.x rather than > > >>>>> allowing users, and ourselves, to focus on trunk for > > >>>>> production > -"64 > > percent" > > >>>> would > > >>>>> be blocked. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Patrick > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> Andor > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On 2020. Oct 21., at 17:52, Enrico Olivelli > > >>>>>>> <eolive...@gmail.com> > > >>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Il giorno mer 21 ott 2020 alle ore 17:49 Andor Molnar < > > >>>>> an...@apache.org> > > >>>>>> ha > > >>>>>>> scritto: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but Oracle gets paid for extended > > support. > > >>>>>>>> Java 8 support until 2030 is not free of charge. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> "ZK may end up with a lot of users potentially locking > > >>>>>>>> themselves > > >>>> to > > >>>>>>>> 3.6.x for a while as Enrico mentioned." > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> That's true. What's the downside of that which we should > > >>>>>>>> invest in > > >>>> to > > >>>>>>>> avoid? > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I see ZooKeeper used in many many projects, all of the > > >>>>>>> HBase/Pulsar/Kafka/Solr ecosystem... > > >>>>>>> they will have to move to JDK11 in order to move to the new > > >>>>>>> ZK > > >>>> version > > >>>>>>> so probably they will stay on ZK 3.6 > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Probably with Java 17 LTS released the cards will change on > > >>>>>>> the > > >>>> table > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Enrico > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Andor > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> On Wed, 2020-10-21 at 08:03 -0700, Brent wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> As a slightly different consideration, if you look at the > > >>>> Long-Term > > >>>>>>>>> Support > > >>>>>>>>> (LTS) roadmaps for Java, currently Java 8 is set to have > > >>>>>>>>> full > > >>>> support > > >>>>>>>>> until > > >>>>>>>>> 2030 from Oracle and at least 2026 from OpenJDK & Corretto: > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>> https://www.oracle.com/java/technologies/java-se-support-roadmap. > > >>>>> html > > >>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_version_history > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> My guess is that a number of companies are still heavily > > >>>>>>>>> invested > > >>>> at > > >>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>> Java 8 level (I know a few) and with that kind of time > > >>>>>>>>> horizon, > > >>>> they > > >>>>>>>>> have > > >>>>>>>>> no real motivation to upgrade for quite a while. If the > > >>>>>>>>> recent Python 2 deprecation is anything to go by, they > > >>>>>>>>> won't do it until they have to. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Not saying Java 8 isn't *very* old (2014 release it seems > > >>>>>>>>> like?) > > >>>> and > > >>>>>>>>> I'm > > >>>>>>>>> not invested heavily either way, but this might suggest > > >>>>>>>>> that ZK > > >>>> may > > >>>>>>>>> end up > > >>>>>>>>> with a lot of users potentially locking themselves to > > >>>>>>>>> 3.6.x for a while as Enrico mentioned. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> (Not a major contributor, but wanted to chime in since I > > >>>>>>>>> just had this conversation with a bunch of people > > >>>>>>>>> professionally recently) > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Brent > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 2:07 AM Andor Molnar > > >>>>>>>>> <an...@apache.org> > > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the summary. > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> I still vote for option 1). Move 3.7.0 to JDK 11 fully. > > >>>>>>>>>> Other projects will upgrade once they’re JDK11 compliant, > > >>>>>>>>>> otherwise they will > > >>>> stay > > >>>>>>>>>> on 3.5 > > >>>>>>>>>> or 3.6. Both version are quite recent in ZooKeeper-terms, > > >>>>>>>>>> we already planned big changes for 3.7.0 and JDK 11 could > > >>>>>>>>>> be one of them. > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> Don’t put extra burden on the ZK community to help others > > >>>>>>>>>> staying on ancient Java versions. > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> Andor > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> On 2020. Oct 21., at 10:57, Enrico Olivelli < > > >>>> eolive...@gmail.com> > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Let me recap > > >>>>>>>>>>> - Christopher is proposing to move to JDK11 > > >>>>>>>>>>> - ZooKeeper client and server are bundled and coded and > > >>>>>>>>>>> tested together > > >>>>>>>>>> in > > >>>>>>>>>>> zookeeper-server > > >>>>>>>>>>> - Enrico is concerned about the need of testing > > >>>>>>>>>>> ZooKeeper client on JDK8 (not a problem to move the > > >>>>>>>>>>> server to > > >>>>>>>>>>> JDK11) > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> ZooKeeper client is used by tons of users and > > >>>>>>>>>>> unfortunately many projects are still on JDK8, if we > > >>>>>>>>>>> move ZooKeeper to JDK11 the risk is to block > > >>>>>>>>>> users > > >>>>>>>>>>> from the adoption, > > >>>>>>>>>>> that is that we will see the world to stay on 3.6.x and > > >>>>>>>>>>> we will have > > >>>>>>>>>> again > > >>>>>>>>>>> a long lived release line, like 3.4. > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Testing the client on JDK8 would be possible if we > > >>>>>>>>>>> create some kind of additional module with system tests, > > >>>>>>>>>>> then we can start the > > >>>> server > > >>>>>>>>>>> on > > >>>>>>>>>> docker > > >>>>>>>>>>> on JDK11+ and start a client on JDK8 with Maven > > >>>>>>>>>>> toolchain it should possible to run surefire tests using > > >>>>>>>>>>> a separate JVM. > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> So in my vision 2 options: > > >>>>>>>>>>> 1) fully JDK11 - drop JDK8 at all > > >>>>>>>>>>> 2) build with JDK11 - server only on JDK11 - add system > > >>>>>>>>>>> tests with docker and toolchains that ensure the > > >>>>>>>>>>> ZooKeeper client (and all > > >>>>>>>>>>> dependencies) > > >>>>>>>>>>> still work on JDK8 > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> From my point of view about the ZooKeeper ecosystem > > >>>>>>>>>>> option 2) will be far better, but we need resources to > > >>>>>>>>>>> work on a new test suite. > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Enrico > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Il giorno mer 21 ott 2020 alle ore 10:43 Andor Molnar < > > >>>>>>>>>>> an...@apache.org> > > >>>>>>>>>> ha > > >>>>>>>>>>> scritto: > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Tamas, Enrico, > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry I don’t follow. Why do we have to test the client > > >>>>>>>>>>>> with JDK 8 in version 3.7.0? > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Andor > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2020. Oct 20., at 22:29, Tamas Penzes < > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> tam...@cloudera.com.INVALID> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Enrico, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Separating ZooKeeper client and server is a huge work, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> but we might not need it. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> As you mentioned we have to test ZK client with Java > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 8, what about separating only the test cases which we > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> need to run with > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Java8 too? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> In Curator we have the ZK compatibility tests where we > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> run a limited > > >>>>>>>>>>>> amount > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of Curator's jUnit tests with a different ZK version. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> We might be able to do the same here, tag tests which > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> are testing ZK > > >>>>>>>>>>>> client > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and run them separately with Java 8. The only > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> limitation is that these tests must stay JDK8 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> compatible. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> But from the tags we will see which ones are those. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, Tamaas > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Oct 17, 2020 at 7:45 AM Enrico Olivelli < > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> eolive...@gmail.com> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Christopher > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I appreciate your idea and I also moved lots of my > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> projects to work > > >>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>> way > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are suggesting. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We must run tests using real jdk8 to test the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Zookeeper client. We > > >>>>>>>>>> must > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ensure that Zookeeper works well, especially while > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> dealing with > > >>>>>>>>>> security > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Currently the client is in the same module of the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> server and it will > > >>>>>>>>>>>> take a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> good (huge) amount of work to separate them > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Enrico > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Il Ven 16 Ott 2020, 23:25 Christopher > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ctubb...@apache.org> ha > > >>>>>>>>>> scritto: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi ZK Devs, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With recent advancements in Java (since Java 9), it > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is now generally no longer necessary to require that > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> software be developed on an older JDK in order to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have confidence that it will run on the older > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version of Java. This is because, as of Java 9, all > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JDK releases have better support for > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cross-compilation to older Java versions. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What this means is that developers can confidently > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make the build requirements for a project higher > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than the Java version that will actually be > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported at runtime. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In fact, ZooKeeper already supports the necessary > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> flags in its Maven build configuration to ensure > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it uses JDK 8 compliance when building on a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> newer JDK (I added this way back in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZOOKEEPER-3739 / > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/1269) > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, I propose that we make JDK 11 the new minimum > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version to *build* ZooKeeper with. This would not > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change the runtime requirement, which would remain > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at JDK 8. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only necessary change to make this happen would > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be to add the minimum Java version to the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maven-enforcer-plugin (like > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> https://github.com/apache/accumulo/blob/438f0efd34ef9d200bc8c7e > > >>>> cdd1 > > >>>> 1d5dedb146519/pom.xml#L1162-L1164 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ) > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This would allow ZooKeeper to to streamline its > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> development process a little bit by reducing the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amount of CI testing that is done as part of the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build. In other words, we can drop the CI builds for > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JDK 8, which saves on build resources and time. The > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return on investment is so low for the JDK 8 builds > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyway, because of the improved cross-compilation in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> newer JDKs. So, there's not much value in building > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on JDK 8 anyway. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course, I am only recommending this for *new* > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release lines, starting with ZooKeeper 3.7.0/master > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branch, because I would not want to change > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expectations for users who will build their own > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.5 and 3.6 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> versions as they continue to have patch versions > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> released. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kind Regards, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Christopher > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > CONFIDENTIALITY & PRIVACY NOTICE > > > This e-mail (including any attachments) is strictly confidential > > > and > may > > also contain privileged information. If you are not the intended > recipient > > you are not authorised to read, print, save, process or disclose > > this message. If you have received this message by mistake, please > > inform the sender immediately and destroy this e-mail, its > > attachments and any > copies. > > Any use, distribution, reproduction or disclosure by any person > > other > than > > the intended recipient is strictly prohibited and the person > > responsible may incur in penalties. > > > The use of this e-mail is only for professional purposes; there is > > > no > > guarantee that the correspondence towards this e-mail will be read > > only > by > > the recipient, because, under certain circumstances, there may be a > > need > to > > access this email by third subjects belonging to the Company. > > > > > ________________________________ CONFIDENTIALITY & PRIVACY NOTICE This e-mail (including any attachments) is strictly confidential and may also contain privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you are not authorised to read, print, save, process or disclose this message. If you have received this message by mistake, please inform the sender immediately and destroy this e-mail, its attachments and any copies. Any use, distribution, reproduction or disclosure by any person other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited and the person responsible may incur in penalties. The use of this e-mail is only for professional purposes; there is no guarantee that the correspondence towards this e-mail will be read only by the recipient, because, under certain circumstances, there may be a need to access this email by third subjects belonging to the Company.
