Sean, can you please reply to this and answer the question regarding
your -1? Thanks.

On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 2:40 PM Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> I'm not actually sure if this would be considered a veto, or just a -1
> on a majority vote. Vetos are used for code changes and are
> accompanied by technical justifications. This isn't vetoing a code
> change based on a technical justification. We're merely deciding on a
> release plan, and the justification appears less technical than social
> (managing user expectations and upgrade requirements) although I
> suppose these lines can be blurred, because everything we do is about
> both people and technology. My assumption is that votes like this are
> typically majority voting, but the fact that this isn't 100% clear is
> something that has always bugged me in the ASF.
>
> I guess the best thing to do is ask Sean: are you intending your -1 as
> a veto against any change that would move us in the direction of the
> proposed plan, or are you willing to permit the majority decision to
> stand here, whichever way it ends up going?
>
> On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 2:10 PM Michael Wall <mjw...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > I am +1 on moving 1.10 to Java 8.
> >
> > However Sean's -1 vote is a veto [1] and we can not proceed down this path
> > unless it is withdrawn.  I can only take the veto to mean there are
> > customers who would upgrade to Accumulo 1.10 but would not upgrade to Java
> > 1.8.  Is there anything that would change your mind Sean?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > 1 - https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#Veto
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 12:46 PM Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Correct, it is up to every user of SemVer to define the public API and
> > > AFAIK we have chosen not to include things like the Java version
> > > needed to run Accumulo in ours[1].
> > >
> > > That doesn't mean it's not crappy to our downstream users to do things
> > > that have a major operational impact upon minor releases. Updating a
> > > JDK version is a major undertaking. It takes a long time to do in an
> > > environment with strict change control policies and it sucks. There
> > > are still shops that run JDK7. There are multiple options for
> > > purchasing commercial support with security updates for it still. Just
> > > picking two vendors out of the air[2], Oracle will still provide
> > > support for almost 2 more years and Azul for almost 3.
> > >
> > > That doesn't mean we have to keep supporting JDK7, but be aware that
> > > we are trading for a gain in developer convenience at the expense of
> > > operator difficulty. We will probably drive folks into the arms of
> > > forks that bother to maintain JDK compatibility for these release
> > > lines. It does inhibit our ability to draw new folks into the
> > > community, but that's not a fundamental problem I guess.
> > >
> > > As an aside, this comment from your cited FAQ is inaccurate on its
> > > face for practical considerations in the Java ecosystem as cause for
> > > not needing to worry about the downstream impact of changing a
> > > dependency.
> > >
> > > > Software that explicitly depends on the same dependencies as your
> > > package should have their own dependency specifications and the author 
> > > will
> > > notice any conflicts.
> > >
> > > We've discussed this a bunch of times. We clearly have disagreement in
> > > the community about the priority on the tradeoff between developer
> > > work and operational work. That's okay.
> > >
> > > [1]: https://accumulo.apache.org/api/
> > > [2]: https://www.azul.com/products/azul-support-roadmap/
> > >
> > > On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 7:16 AM Ed Coleman <d...@etcoleman.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > If I am reading semver correctly (
> > > https://semver.org/#what-should-i-do-if-i-update-my-own-dependencies-without-changing-the-public-api)
> > > this proposal has no changes to the Accumulo public API, it is an update 
> > > to
> > > our dependencies - and would not require a major version change.
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Sean Busbey [mailto:bus...@cloudera.com.INVALID]
> > > > Sent: Friday, November 01, 2019 3:52 AM
> > > > To: dev@accumulo apache. org <dev@accumulo.apache.org>
> > > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Proposal to release version 1.10
> > > >
> > > > -1 no dropping supported java versions in a minor release. if we want
> > > folks to move to java 8 then we should make it easier to upgrade to
> > > Accumulo 2.y
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 7:37 PM Ed Coleman <edcole...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > As suggested in the LTS discussion ([LAZY][VOTE] A basic, but
> > > > > concrete, LTS proposal), I'm breaking this out to as a separate thread
> > > > > to keep the topic distinct.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The proposal - I would like to start the formal release process for a
> > > > > 1.10 version that would change the java language level to java 8.  The
> > > > > release would be based on the current 1.9 branch and would be released
> > > > > instead of a 1.9.4.  The 1.10 release would not contain additional
> > > > > feature changes that are not present in the current 1.9 branch.
> > > > > Currently, this would be based on the commit SHA:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 328ffa0849981e0f113dfbf539c832b447e06902 - committed Thu Oct 10.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > (I am unaware of any bug-fixes or issues in the pipe line that would /
> > > > > should be included - but hopefully this makes the intention clear.)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The goal is to provide a candidate for LTS nomination that is based on
> > > > > the current 1.9.x code, but unifies our currently supported branches
> > > > > to all use java 8 as the supported language level. While this had been
> > > > > discussed in the past, enough time has passed that a java 8
> > > > > requirement now, seems to me, to be unlikely to impact any customers
> > > > > that would look to upgrade Accumulo past a 1.9.3 version and have them
> > > not running at least java 8.
> > > > > Having our code base with a modern, unified java language support
> > > > > level would greatly benefit our development and reduce the burden to
> > > > > support our multiple branches.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > This vote will be held open for at least the standard 72 hours.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > busbey
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > busbey
> > >

Reply via email to