I am good with requiring Java 8 and moving to 2.0 for the release. Doesn't look like the vote for 1.8.0 is going to pass, which is good. That gives us a little more time to discuss this. We will have to redo all the testing, which is fine too.
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Christopher <[email protected]> wrote: > That's fine with me. I think people might expect a bigger jump with a major > version change like that, but it's not a big deal. The good stuffs I was > hoping to get into a 2.0 will just happen at 3.0 instead. > > On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 5:28 PM Sean Busbey <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Why don't we just make the 1.8 branch 2.0 then? I really don't want to > > drop support for JDKs on non-major releases; it's super disruptive. > > > > On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Christopher <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I know we've talked about this before, but I kind of want to just use > > Java > > > 8 for Accumulo 1.8. It'd help clean up some things in the build (can > make > > > use of newer versions of build plugins, and make it easier for new > > > development against the latest release). > > > > > > I just don't know how reasonable it is to keep making new, non-bugfix > > > releases on EOL JDKs (even though I may have previously argued that > it'd > > be > > > safer to just wait until a major version bump). > > > > > > > > -- > > busbey > > >
