On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]> wrote: [snip]
> So that looks fine. I have seen cases before where using the maven compiler > plugin's -source -target options without the correct rt.jar file resulted > in Java 6 JVM compatible class files that still referenced JRE classes that > weren't available. > > Right, my main concern was this kind of problem (which I think can be resolved by setting bootstrap classpath during compile). > Attempting to compile the source tarball with a Java 6 JDK should cause > that to show up. [snip] That's what I'd hope also, but I think there are fringe cases that wouldn't catch this: use of constants which differ in value between versions, changes between interface/abstract class, and maybe a few other fringe cases that wouldn't be caught at compile time, but could cause runtime errors. (I'm no expert on this, though, which is why I phrased it as a question initially.) > (as an aside, I couldn't find us actually documenting anywhere in the user > manual or README what java versions we support.) > > Maybe it'd be good to document it somewhere, but the java version is specified in the pom, and has been: Java 6 or newer for Accumulo < 1.7 Java 7 or newer for Accumulo >= 1.7 FWIW, we don't really document any other compatible dependency versions either, outside the pom.xml, but divergence from this I'd typically expect a downstream package maintainer to deal with (except for the fact that many people use the upstream binaries directly, and that's a valid support case for our community). More FWIW: if we were using maven to generate a site, this kind of documentation could be generated automatically. > On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Christopher <[email protected] > <https://mail.google.com/mail/?view=cm&fs=1&tf=1&[email protected]>> > wrote: > > > Does it matter that this was built with Java 1.7.0_25? Is that going to > > cause issues running in a 1.6 JRE? > > > > > > -- > > Christopher L Tubbs II > > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii > > > > On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 2:38 AM, Corey Nolet <[email protected] > > <https://mail.google.com/mail/?view=cm&fs=1&tf=1&[email protected]>> > > wrote: > > > > > Devs, > > > > > > Please consider the following candidate for Apache Accumulo 1.6.2 > > > > > > Branch: 1.6.2-rc3 > > > SHA1: 3a6987470c1e5090a2ca159614a80f0fa50393bf > > > Staging Repository: > > > > > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1021/ > > > > > > Source tarball: > > > > > > > > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1021/org/apache/accumulo/accumulo/1.6.2/accumulo-1.6.2-src.tar.gz > > > Binary tarball: > > > > > > > > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1021/org/apache/accumulo/accumulo/1.6.2/accumulo-1.6.2-bin.tar.gz > > > (Append ".sha1", ".md5" or ".asc" to download the signature/hash > for > > a > > > given artifact.) > > > > > > Signing keys available at: > https://www.apache.org/dist/accumulo/KEYS > > > > > > Over 1.6.1, we have 148 issues resolved: > > > > > > > > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=accumulo.git;a=blob_plain;f=CHANGES;hb=1.6.2-rc3 > > > > > > Testing: All unit, integration and functional tests are passing. > > > > > > API compatibility report for 1.6.1 to 1.6.2: > > > > > > > > > http://people.apache.org/~cjnolet/accumulo-1.6.2-rc3/compat_reports/accumulo/1.6.1_to_1.6.2/compat_report.html > > > > > > API backwards compatibility report for 1.6.2 to 1.6.1: > > > > > > > > > http://people.apache.org/~cjnolet/accumulo-1.6.2-rc3/compat_reports/accumulo/1.6.2_to_1.6.1/compat_report.html > > > > > > The vote will be open until Saturday, January 31st 12:00AM UTC > (1/30 > > > 8:00PM ET, 1/30 5:00PM PT) > > > > > > > > > -- > Sean >
