Thanks boss. I figured you'd have my back :)
On May 5, 2016 9:43 PM, "Christopher" <ctubb...@apache.org> wrote:
> Already pushed. Initially forgot about modernizer, but I'm working through
> it now.
>
> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 7:25 PM Josh Elser <josh.el...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Sounds good!
> >
> > I had tried to switch master to jdk8 as well, but ran into modernizer
> > plugin issues. I've since been on a call, so I haven't been able to push
> > that update. I'll get to it when I can, but perhaps someone has beaten
> > me to it already.
> >
> > Christopher wrote:
> > > Okay, so if we're okay treating the master branch as a 2.0 development
> > > branch, then I'm going to go ahead and start focusing on some 2.0
> tickets
> > > that may involve refactoring which have breaking changes that I've been
> > > reluctant to do before without an explicit 2.0 development branch. Of
> > > course, none of this says we have to stop development on 1.x stuffs, or
> > > says anything about when we'll release a 2.0, but it'd be nice to have
> a
> > > place to start putting in stuff for an eventual 2.0.
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 11:07 AM Josh Elser<josh.el...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Ok, looks to me that we are in agreement now and don't need a vote.
> > >>
> > >> I will create a 1.8 branch today (updating Jenkins appropriately) so
> we
> > >> can get master in a state that would be ready for the changes in 4177.
> > >>
> > >> Keith Turner wrote:
> > >>> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 4:54 PM, Christopher<ctubb...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> I think I'd prefer leaving 1.8 as it stands, with the expectation to
> > >> have a
> > >>>> release line of 1.8 which only requires Java 7.
> > >>>>
> > >>> +1
> > >>>
> > >>> I can not see any reason to switch to JDK8 before releasing 1.8...
> > >> assuming
> > >>> thats going to happen soonish
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>> We can create a 2.0 branch, which bumps the Java version, and can
> > accept
> > >>>> changes which require Java 8 or API-breaking changes (as per semver)
> > for
> > >>>> the next major release line after 1.8.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> That would put us on a solid roadmap for 2.0 without disrupting 1.8
> > >>>> development, which is probably already nearing release readiness.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 4:33 PM Josh Elser<josh.el...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying, Mike -- I'm inclined to agree with
> > you.
> > >> I
> > >>>>> can't think of a reason why we would upgrade to Java8 and not make
> > use
> > >>>>> of it in some way (publicly or privately).
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> That being said, I don't think I see consensus. How about we
> regroup
> > in
> > >>>>> the form of a vote? (normal semver rules are an invariant -- no
> > changes
> > >>>>> to our public API compatibility rules are implied by the below)
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> * Call the current 1.8.0-SNAPSHOT (master) "2.0.0-SNAPSHOT" and
> move
> > to
> > >>>>> jdk8
> > >>>>> * Branch 1.8, make master 2.0.0-SNAPSHOT. 1.8 stays jdk7, 2.0 goes
> > jdk8
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Please chime in if I missed another option or am calling discussion
> > too
> > >>>>> soon. It just seems like we might have veered off-track and I don't
> > >> want
> > >>>>> this to fall to the wayside (again) without decision.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Mike Drob wrote:
> > >>>>>> If our code ends up using java 8 bytecode in any classes required
> > by a
> > >>>>>> consumer, then I think they will get compilation (linking?)
> errors,
> > >>>>>> regardless of java 8 types in our methods signatures.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 3:09 PM, Josh Elser<josh.el...@gmail.com>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>> That's a new assertion ("we can't actually use Java 8 features
> util
> > >>>>>>> Accumulo-2"), isn't it? We could use new Java 8 features
> internally
> > >>>>> which
> > >>>>>>> would require a minimum of Java 8 and not affect the public API.
> > >> These
> > >>>>> are
> > >>>>>>> related, not mutally exclusive, IMO.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> To Shawn's point: introducing Java 8 types/APIs was exactly the
> > point
> > >>>> --
> > >>>>>>> we got here from ACCUMULO-4177 which does exactly that.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Mike Drob wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> I agree with Shawn's implied statement -- why bother dropping
> > Java 7
> > >>>> in
> > >>>>>>>> any
> > >>>>>>>> Accumulo 1.x if we can't actually make use of Java 8
> > features.until
> > >>>>>>>> Accumulo 2.0
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 1:29 PM, Christopher<ctubb...@apache.org
> >
> > >>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> Right, these are competing and mutually exclusive goals, so we
> > need
> > >>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>> decide which is a priority and on what timeline we should
> > >> transition
> > >>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>> Java 8 to support those goals.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 9:16 AM Shawn Walker<
> > >>>> accum...@shawn-walker.net
> > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> I'm not sure that guaranteeing build-ability under Java 7 would
> > >>>>> address
> > >>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> issue that raised this discussion: We (might) want to add a
> > >>>>> dependency
> > >>>>>>>>>> which requires Java 8. Or, following Keith's comment, we
> might
> > >>>> wish
> > >>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>> introduce Java 8 types (e.g. CompletableFuture<T>) into
> > Accumulo's
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> "public"
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> API.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 6:42 PM, Christopher<
> ctubb...@apache.org
> > >
> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> 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<
> > wsla...@gmail.com>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> 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<
> > josh.el...@gmail.com
> > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Sean Busbey wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 8:55 AM, Josh Elser<
> > >> josh.el...@gmail.com
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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<
> ke...@deenlo.com>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 1:54 AM, Sean Busbey<
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bus...@cloudera.com
> > >>>>>>>>>> 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.
> > >
> >
>
