I intend to remove mock, and other deprecated stuffs (aggregators!) in 2.0. But, that's exactly my point. Removing or changing these things required a bump in 2.0, so discussions about whether or not we'd need to bump to 2.0 with the jdk8 switch were moot (unless we were willing to disable modernizer, of course).
To Josh's question, unfortunately, modernizer has a fail/no-fail mode, but it doesn't allow custom exceptions like findbugs. It's more like checkstyle in that way. It's either on or off. On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 12:11 PM Josh Elser <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 to that, too > > Dave Marion wrote: > > It's 2.0, remove mock and deprecate it in 1.8 if it's not already. > > On May 6, 2016 10:25 AM, "Josh Elser"<[email protected]> wrote: > > > > We can't disable modernizer just for mock? Or really, any code which we > > intentionally don't want to modernize? > > On May 5, 2016 11:43 PM, "Christopher"<[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Another interesting point... didn't realize until actually doing it: > >> bumping to JDK8 *requires* a bump in the major version, because > modernizer > >> will block on some incompatible API changes in Mock, which is already > >> deprecated. (Unless we're okay with disabling modernizer... which I > guess > >> is an acceptable solution... but it makes me unhappy :) ) > >> > >> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 11:39 PM Josh Elser<[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >>> Thanks boss. I figured you'd have my back :) > >>> On May 5, 2016 9:43 PM, "Christopher"<[email protected]> 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<[email protected]> > >> 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<[email protected]> > >>>> 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<[email protected]> > >>>>> 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<[email protected]> > >>>>> 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< > >> [email protected] > >>>>>>>>> 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< > >>> [email protected] > >>>>>>>>>> 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< > >>>>>>>>> [email protected] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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< > >>>> [email protected] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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< > >>>>> [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. > > >
