FWIW, the only reason I have JDK 8 on my machines is Apache.
Gary
On Wed, Jul 19, 2023, 18:15 Phil Steitz wrote:
> Exactly. I think at major version cuts, we should drop support for JDKs
> that are no longer supported [1]. Part of that is simply availability of
> JDKs to test against and the
Exactly. I think at major version cuts, we should drop support for JDKs
that are no longer supported [1]. Part of that is simply availability of
JDKs to test against and the implied commitment to do that testing and fix
bugs that may be JDK-specific. Part of it is to allow use of new language
The simplest way to bake in JPMS automatically is to build with the
Moditect plugin and Java 11.
There is also an expectation from new contributors that current development
does not happen on the dead and EOL Java 8. It will be nice to at least
have the option to use new language features and
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 at 19:38, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
> OK, that sounds good.
>
> Gary
>
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 5:50 PM Phil Steitz wrote:
> >
> > I would say 17 for 3.0.
> >
> > Phil
Are there aspects of Pool that require moving away from JDK 8? Such a
move would restrict downstream consumers
OK, that sounds good.
Gary
On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 5:50 PM Phil Steitz wrote:
>
> I would say 17 for 3.0.
>
> Phil
>
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 8:00 PM Gary Gregory wrote:
>
> > With 3.0, we should IMO bump to Java 11 or 17.
> >
> > FWIW, the only reason I have Java 8 on my machines are Apache
I would say 17 for 3.0.
Phil
On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 8:00 PM Gary Gregory wrote:
> With 3.0, we should IMO bump to Java 11 or 17.
>
> FWIW, the only reason I have Java 8 on my machines are Apache projects like
> this one.
>
> Gary
>
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2023, 19:32 Gary Gregory wrote:
>
> >
I think we probably should keep it. I see now tomcat still supports it, so
would require more forking / munging to add it back if we drop it. There
may be other downstreams that depend on it. So I would say keep it.
On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 7:59 PM Gary Gregory wrote:
> Do we want to keep JMX
With 3.0, we should IMO bump to Java 11 or 17.
FWIW, the only reason I have Java 8 on my machines are Apache projects like
this one.
Gary
On Mon, Jul 17, 2023, 19:32 Gary Gregory wrote:
> Great, thanks for the update :-)
>
> Gary
>
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2023, 19:11 Phil Steitz wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
Do we want to keep JMX support for 3.0?
Just curious,
Gary
On Mon, Jul 17, 2023, 19:32 Gary Gregory wrote:
> Great, thanks for the update :-)
>
> Gary
>
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2023, 19:11 Phil Steitz wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> I am doing soak tests now on the 2,x branch code and with DBCP.
>>
>> Phil
>>
Great, thanks for the update :-)
Gary
On Mon, Jul 17, 2023, 19:11 Phil Steitz wrote:
> +1
>
> I am doing soak tests now on the 2,x branch code and with DBCP.
>
> Phil
>
> On Sun, Jul 16, 2023 at 8:19 PM Gary Gregory
> wrote:
>
> > The master branch is now on 3.0 and we have a 2.x branch as
+1
I am doing soak tests now on the 2,x branch code and with DBCP.
Phil
On Sun, Jul 16, 2023 at 8:19 PM Gary Gregory wrote:
> The master branch is now on 3.0 and we have a 2.x branch as well.
>
> The next release will be 2.12.0 and then we can keep discussing how to
> handle 3: exceptions and
The master branch is now on 3.0 and we have a 2.x branch as well.
The next release will be 2.12.0 and then we can keep discussing how to
handle 3: exceptions and API changes.
Gary
On Mon, Jul 3, 2023 at 2:01 PM Phil Steitz wrote:
>
> +1
>
> Phil
>
> On Mon, Jul 3, 2023 at 9:41 AM Gary Gregory
+1
Phil
On Mon, Jul 3, 2023 at 9:41 AM Gary Gregory wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This is a switch from the 2.12.0 vote mail thread in order to discuss 3.0
> and 2.x releases.
>
> I propose we switch master to 3.0 and create a branch called 2.x based and
> an old commit and release 2.12.0 from there.
>
Hi all,
This is a switch from the 2.12.0 vote mail thread in order to discuss 3.0
and 2.x releases.
I propose we switch master to 3.0 and create a branch called 2.x based and
an old commit and release 2.12.0 from there.
Gary
14 matches
Mail list logo
