I don't feel strongly about this, but I was kind of thinking that we'd bump to Java 8 dependency (opportunistically) when we were ready to develop a 2.0 version. But, I'm not opposed to doing it on the 1.8 branch.
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:50 PM William Slacum <[email protected]> wrote: > So my point about versioning WRT to the Java runtime is more about how > there are incompatibilities within the granularity of Java versions we talk > about (I'm specifically referencing a Kerberos incompatibility within > versions of Java 7), so I think that just blanket saying "We support Java X > or Y" really isn't enough. I personally feel some kind of version bump is > nice to say that something has changed, but until the public API starts > exposing Java 8 features, it's a total cop out to say, "Here's all these > bug fixes and some new features, oh by the way upgrade your infrastructure > because we decided to use a new Java version for an optional feature". > > The best parallel I can think of is in Scala, where there's no binary > compatibility between minor versions (ie, 2.10, 2.11,etc), so there's > generally an extra qualifier on libraries marking the scala compability > level. Would we ever want to have accumulo-server-1.7-j[7|8] styled > artifacts to signal some general JRE compatibility? It's a total mess, but > I haven't seen a better solution. > > Another idea is we could potentially have some guarantee for Java 7, such > as making sure we can build a distribution using Java 7, but only > distribute Java 8 artifacts by default? > > On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:30 PM, Josh Elser <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Sean Busbey wrote: > > > >> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 8:55 AM, Josh Elser<[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >>> > Thanks for the input, Sean. > >>> > > >>> > Playing devil's advocate: we didn't have a major version bump when > we > >>> > dropped JDK6 support (in Accumulo-1.7.0). Oracle has EOL'ed java 7 > >>> back in > >>> > April 2015. Was the 6->7 upgrade different than a 7->8 upgrade? > >>> > > >>> > >> > >> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 10:31 AM, Keith Turner<[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> > On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 1:54 AM, Sean Busbey<[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>> > > >>> > >>>> >> If we drop jdk7 support, I would strongly prefer a major version > >>>> bump. > >>>> >> > >>>> > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > Whats the rationale for binding a bump to Accumulo 2.0 with a bump > in > >>> the > >>> > JDK version? > >>> > > >>> > >> > >> The decision to drop JDK6 support happened in latemarch / earlyApril > >> 2014[1], long before any of our discussions or decisions on semver. > >> AFAICT it didn't get discussed again, presumably because by the time > >> we got to 1.7.0 RCs it was too far in the past. > >> > > > > Thanks for the correction, Sean. I hadn't dug around closely enough. > > >
