Well it discovers some issues like activemq-artemis/artemis-cli/src/main/java/org/apache/activemq/artemis/cli/commands/check/QueueCheck.java:[104,55] [FormatString] extra format arguments: used 0, provided 1 [ERROR] (see https://errorprone.info/bugpattern/FormatString)
Le 29/05/2020 à 18:36, Justin Bertram a écrit : > I agree 100% on ditching error prone if it's blocking us. > > > Justin > > On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 11:34 AM Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I'm not in love with error prone. if it's blocking us to move to a >> newer JDK i say it goes away (at least for now).. if at a later point >> it's again compatible we put it back on. >> >> On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 12:21 PM Emmanuel Hugonnet <ehugo...@redhat.com> >> wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> Alas yes as otherwise you need to configure the compilation with >> error-prone and jboss logging annotation processor., and future annotation >>> processors. >>> >>> It was the less intrusive way from my point of view. >>> >>> Emmanuel >>> >>> Le 29/05/2020 à 18:10, Robbie Gemmell a écrit : >>>> Is it really necessary to add error-prone definition to almost every >>>> module? Presumably theres some module it isnt defined in. No other >>>> workarounds for that? >>>> >>>> I also wonder about this bit: >>>> >> https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/compare/master...clebertsuconic:java_11#diff-600376dffeb79835ede4a0b285078036R1437 >>>> It refers to a javac.version property that doesnt seem to exist? Other >>>> exmaples of error-prone config using that seem to set it explicitly. >>>> >>>> Robbie >>>> >>>> On Fri, 29 May 2020 at 16:56, Clebert Suconic < >> clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> @Emmanuel: I rebased your branch here: >>>>> https://github.com/clebertsuconic/activemq-artemis/tree/java_11 >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps you may want to take a look. >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 11:54 AM Clebert Suconic >>>>> <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> so, if we switched to JDK 11 on the CI, those would still work with >>>>>> the trick you used? >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 11:39 AM Emmanuel Hugonnet < >> ehugo...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>>>>> I changed the way the classloaders where working with JDK 11 using >> the plateform classloader as the parent instead of null so that I could >>>>>>> access the required modules. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Emmanuel >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Le 29/05/2020 à 17:37, Clebert Suconic a écrit : >>>>>>>> We should come back into this... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> How did you fix the compatibility tests with JDK 11? do you need >> JDK 8 >>>>>>>> to run the compatibility tests? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 3:19 PM Emmanuel Hugonnet < >> ehugo...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> No relation to WildFly, just for the 'fun' of it and because >> switching my JAVA_HOME and PATH each time I wxanted to build was itching me >> too >>>>>>>>> much ;) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It can wait and get some baking :) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Emmanuel >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Le 08/05/2020 à 19:47, Clebert Suconic a écrit : >>>>>>>>>> Oh wow.. that's awesome. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Can we do the migration after the 2.13.0 release? I have pretty >> much >>>>>>>>>> everything ready to go (besides a few changes we have to make >> next >>>>>>>>>> week). doing this migration now would probably delay the release. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Or you have some requirement for Wildfly that you must do this >> now? if >>>>>>>>>> you do we can eventually delay it.. but I would prefer doing it >> for >>>>>>>>>> later. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 6:24 AM Emmanuel Hugonnet < >> ehugo...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Hello, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> When i need to work on Apache ActiveMQ Artemis I need to switch >> my local environement to use OpenJDK 8 instead of the default OpenJDK 11 >>>>>>>>>>> which I use to develop. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I have started a branch >> https://github.com/ehsavoie/activemq-artemis/tree/java_11 which builds on >> OpenJDK 8 and 11 with the fast-tests profile. >>>>>>>>>>> mvn clean install -Pfast-tests is passing for me locally :) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I don't think that the CI or the release should use Java 11 but >> I hope this will smoothen the time when the migration occurs. >>>>>>>>>>> Also I couldn't use the --release 8 flag for OpenJDK 11 because >> of the use of Unsafe, if someone has a better alternative I'm all hears. >>>>>>>>>>> Do you want me to sumbit a PR for this ? Does this make sense >> to the community ? >>>>>>>>>>> Emmanuel >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Clebert Suconic >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Clebert Suconic >> >> -- >> Clebert Suconic >> >>
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
