Hi all,
Could a consensus solution be that for all JDK 8 - compatibility
related items, any/all work related to that, we assign those issues to
Svata -- and we try this for one release and see how that goes? If it
fails, then in the release after that, we should all then have
consensus to move awa
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023, 19:35 Jan Lahoda, wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just wanted to ask if anyone would object to me trying to publish the
> existing VS Code extension binary on https://open-vsx.org?
>
https://github.com/apache/netbeans/issues/3914
Best wishes,
Neil
Hi,
I just wanted to ask if anyone would object to me trying to publish the
existing VS Code extension binary on https://open-vsx.org?
Thanks,
Jan
On 10.04.23 06:20, Michael Bien wrote:
Don't let maven distract us here, I only kept mentioning it since that
was the area I have been working on. The whole java ecosystem moves
on: Jetty, Jakarta EE, Spring, Jenkins, Maven, Lucene, (...)
Since I just read the news in my RSS reader:
ecj, th
On 10.04.23 12:45, Neil C Smith wrote:
Seriously, we're left with vote this week (maybe with amendment) or
punt the decision for another 3 months to happen with NB20. I'm
curious what people who've +1'd this so far would prefer to do after
taking into account your points / suggestions? I *reall
Well, there is no hatred here, it is a heated debate.
It's just beyond my understanding that people with 20+ years of software
development experience don't see branching as a viable option.
It seems we could not have convinced some of us on our proposal, that's sad.
I'm getting tired of this deb
On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 1:41 PM Svata Dedic
wrote:
> On 10. 04. 23 19:35, Scott Palmer wrote:
> > Note that the one example we have been given so far of "Microchip IDE",
> if
> > it is what I think it is "MPLAB X IDE" (
> > https://www.microchip.com/en-us/tools-resources/develop/mplab-x-ide),
> t
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023, 17:45 Jaroslav Tulach,
wrote:
> Thank you Sváťa for writing this email. It open another "can of worms" in
> the "lazy consensus" thread - in my opinion clearly rendering the "lazy
> consensus" as obsolete.
>
In Apache projects, "consensus" means *widespread agreement among p
On 10. 04. 23 19:35, Scott Palmer wrote:
Note that the one example we have been given so far of "Microchip IDE", if
it is what I think it is "MPLAB X IDE" (
https://www.microchip.com/en-us/tools-resources/develop/mplab-x-ide), then
it seems to have Windows 10, Ubuntu 16.04, macOs 10.15 as minimum
Just to be clear, there is no "hate" on my part. I know the "tone" is hard
to communicate via email. I just disagree that Java 8 support should
continue in the main codebase.
When I suggest that a Java 8 compatible fork is how to proceed, I wish you
all the best of success with it. If you have t
Hi,
So are these "hundreds of people" Oracle customers, Toni customers, both
Oracle and Toni customers or any other kind of users, say open source
projects?
Thanks,
Antonio
On 8/4/23 14:04, Jaroslav Tulach wrote:
You have met hundreds of people using NetBeans Platform in your career (more
t
On 10.04.23 18:34, John Neffenger wrote:
On 4/10/23 5:08 AM, Svata Dedic wrote:
I am advocating not to drop JDK8 as runtime for NetBeans (extended)
Platform, as that decision affects NetBeans-based applications.
Microchip IDE, that mining analytic stuff we had presentation a long
time ago (but
What is actually the JDK 8 exit strategy of those who vetoed? Since so
far none was given.
options:
a) there is none, the NetBeans project ends when JDK 8 ends (or before
that; this would explain frgaal etc)
b) NetBeans waits until JDK 8 ends, and is then migrated in big bang
fashion to JDK
Thank you Sváťa for writing this email. It open another "can of worms" in
the "lazy consensus" thread - in my opinion clearly rendering the "lazy
consensus" as obsolete.
I still need a bit of time to think about using your email strategically,
but in any case I'm happy. I am no longer the only one
If Jaroslav, Svata, and Toni will take ownership of and be responsible
for ALL items that relate to handling JDK 8 related incompatibilities
and any other issues connected to this, then we may be able to solve
this problem.
I perceive little faith in that this will be done, since this has thus
far
On 4/10/23 5:08 AM, Svata Dedic wrote:
I am advocating not to drop JDK8 as runtime for NetBeans (extended)
Platform, as that decision affects NetBeans-based applications.
Microchip IDE, that mining analytic stuff we had presentation a long
time ago (but that still IMHO lives), and possibly othe
On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 7:26 AM Karl Tauber wrote:
> +1
>
> On 10.04.2023 14:08, Svata Dedic wrote:
> > I am advocating not to drop JDK8 as runtime for NetBeans (extended)
> > Platform, as that decision affects NetBeans-based applications.
> > Microchip IDE, that mining analytic stuff we had pres
+1
On 10.04.2023 14:08, Svata Dedic wrote:
I am advocating not to drop JDK8 as runtime for NetBeans (extended)
Platform, as that decision affects NetBeans-based applications.
Microchip IDE, that mining analytic stuff we had presentation a long
time ago (but that still IMHO lives), and possibly
One strand that comes through in this discussion is that those that want to
continue JDK 8 should also be the owners of it.
It is clear that a level of exhaustion is being reached by the majority of
the core contributors of this project.
A bigger risk than us losing the ability to run projects de
As far as basing decisions on actual data goes, I agree completely. Do we have
any data on how many users would be affected by dropping JDK 8 support in
future NetBeans versions? I’m talking real numbers here, not a few people
stating, “I would like it to run on Java 8”.
That is:
- How many u
Hi,
Am Montag, dem 10.04.2023 um 13:02 +0200 schrieb Geertjan Wielenga:
> My feeling on this discussion is that, yes, it’s unfortunate that we’re
> getting to fruitful discussion only at this late stage — but better late
> than never and without this useful thread we wouldn’t have been getting
> w
On 10. 04. 23 5:40, Laszlo Kishalmi wrote:
It is also being said that "The IDE will continue to support users
developing projects for/with JDK 8, for as long as nb-javac and other
dependencies allow." . I think the team would understand if we keep our
Gradle Tooling library on JDK8 level for
My feeling on this discussion is that, yes, it’s unfortunate that we’re
getting to fruitful discussion only at this late stage — but better late
than never and without this useful thread we wouldn’t have been getting
where we’re getting at all.
Could one way forward be to do a Zoom call with all t
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 at 00:16, Svata Dedic wrote:
> Please remember that the published proposal not only covered JDK8's
> fate, which we argue about right now, but also the idea to drop JDK11 in
> 2024. So take my
>
> * -1 (at the moment) for JDK8 phase out with NB19;
> * and ANOTHER -1 to the JDK1
24 matches
Mail list logo
