Hi all,
I believe we're encountering the issue related to cherry-picking to the
release branches.
Since the master is on JDK17 now it is allowed to use language features
from jdk9 onwards.
This is a horrible problem for those pulls that need to be cherry-picked to
release branches.
Now we are
Hi Dezhi, and Teng,
FYI. Here is the thread that discusses JDK 17.
On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 8:22 AM Matteo Merli wrote:
> --
> Matteo Merli
>
>
> On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 11:10 AM Dave Fisher wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On May 11, 2022, at 6:39 AM, Matteo Merli
> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, May
--
Matteo Merli
On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 11:10 AM Dave Fisher wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 11, 2022, at 6:39 AM, Matteo Merli wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 1:10 AM Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> >> I am sorry, I missed this discussion.
> >> But until we cut a release we are in time to change our
> On May 11, 2022, at 6:39 AM, Matteo Merli wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 1:10 AM Enrico Olivelli wrote:
>> I am sorry, I missed this discussion.
>> But until we cut a release we are in time to change our minds, if we
>> find out that we can do better.
>
> Yes, but the precise point of
The proposal is to keep java 8 for client library and only move server side
to 17 :)
On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 11:05 AM Rajan Dhabalia
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I do not agree to force client applications to use jdk-17 and that will not
> be good Pulsar as a project because that will force users to find
Hi,
I do not agree to force client applications to use jdk-17 and that will not
be good Pulsar as a project because that will force users to find another
alternative of Pulsar for their messaging usecases. In large org where
Pulsar is being used as a managed service and used by a large number of
On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 1:10 AM Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> I am sorry, I missed this discussion.
> But until we cut a release we are in time to change our minds, if we
> find out that we can do better.
Yes, but the precise point of having a PIP process is to have
discussions and formalize
Matteo,
Il giorno lun 9 mag 2022 alle ore 19:34 Matteo Merli
ha scritto:
>
> We have already had several discussions on this subject, on the
> by-weekly community call, on the PIP proposal and finally the PIP
> vote.
I am sorry, I missed this discussion.
But until we cut a release we are in
We have already had several discussions on this subject, on the
by-weekly community call, on the PIP proposal and finally the PIP
vote.
It is not that the PR came out of the blue. Obviously every decision
can be re-visited if there are additional details, though it would be
better if we get the
+1 for requiring JDK11 and prepare for JDK17
On 2022/05/09 11:03:27 Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> I am sorry,
> I have missed this thread.
>
> I believe that requiring JDK17 to build and especially to RUN the
> Pulsar broker is not a good idea currently.
> Many enterprises, especially the bigger, or
10 matches
Mail list logo
