On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com> wrote: > Dropping JDK6 support is a pretty big deal.
I don't know that it's as big a deal as many think it is, but it is certainly big enough to require a vote, I think. > Is it worth making it a 2.0.0 feature instead of 1.6.0? > > If not, what would be the distinction for a 2.0.0? Good question. We have not discussed the kinds of big features that would require updating the major revision number in a release. I don't think this is it, but if it, then that could be held as a separate vote. > In the mean time we could explicitly change testing to be on JDK7 instead > of JDK6 as an initial step. I don't know what you mean by this. I've been running on JRE7 for quite some time (at least 6 months). Other than that, what kind of test procedures are you suggesting? > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Given all the previous discussions about this, and assuming all points >> and counterpoints have already been sufficiently enumerated, I'd like >> to put it to a vote, explicitly: >> >> Should we switch to JDK 1.7 for Accumulo 1.6.0, to take advantage of >> newer features (ACCUMULO-905), or should we continue to require that >> Accumulo 1.6.0 run on JRE 1.6? >> >> -- >> Christopher L Tubbs II >> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii >> > > > > -- > Sean Busbey > Solutions Architect > Cloudera, Inc. > Phone: MAN-VS-BEARD -- Christopher L Tubbs II http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
