we could also take the major version to do a pass of dependency updates. On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Christopher <[email protected]> wrote: > Yeah, this discussion presumes the current vote fails. Also, it means we > wouldn't really be dropping any deprecated stuffs from 1.* until at least > 3.0.0. I think some folks might be happy about that. I'm certainly not > going to push for removing anything this late in the game. This would just > be like a minor release, but with new JDK requirements and named like a > major release. The 1.8 branch is also building on Hadoop 2.6.4 by default, > so it might also be best to document that we recommend using at least that > (though not certain it's strictly required... earlier versions are just not > well-tested). > > On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 5:57 PM Michael Wall <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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 >> > > >> > >>
-- busbey
