Isn't the JDK we build with when publishing to maven somewhat of a public interface due to cassandra-all library usage? I agree that we probably just need to clearly document what JVMs we test a release on which is a good signal for what we think will work at runtime (and this may be a much newer JVM than we built with).
Apologies I didn't intend to change what we were voting on, I was just trying to understand if we were voting on the original text or the original text *plus* the "we don't break things and discuss breakage before breaking apis" (which I still can't find on the wiki, but I am likely just bad at search). I do agree version and feature support is perhaps a separate topic from killing the minor (which seems unambiguously good). -Joey On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 7:47 PM Josh McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> wrote: > Pragmatically, I believe our in-jvm upgrade dtests require the 2 versions > of C* you're testing to both support running on (and probably right now > building on) a shared JDK version. So for instance, if we had: > > - Release 21.0.0: JDK30, JDK31 > - Release 22.0.0: JDK35, JDK40 > > We wouldn't be able to test an upgrade from 21 to 22. Arguably we could > *build* on an older supported version and run both on the newer, but at > least right now I think that's our restriction. There's tension here if our > release cadence and LTS JDK's intersect badly, but JDK LTS is infrequent > enough relative to our releases that I think we're potentially getting > worked up about a non-issue here. > > Since the JDK isn't an API and we've already discussed and have some > measure of consensus in the past (I thought; haven't dug that up now due to > shortage of time), I think we can and should formalize that separately from > this vote thread. > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2025, at 6:31 PM, David Capwell wrote: > > Also, I thought we had separate discussion about them - that we want to > keep up possibly with the last two LTS versions. > > > This is what I remember as well. 6.0 would support 17/21 as thats the > latest, if 7.0 is out before 25, then 7.0 would be 17/21, else it would be > 21/25 > > On Apr 23, 2025, at 3:11 PM, Ekaterina Dimitrova <e.dimitr...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > I should say that I also haven’t thought of JDK versions when I voted > here. Also, I thought we had separate discussion about them - that we want > to keep up possibly with the last two LTS versions. Currently we do not > have vision on when will be the next release date, so I cannot personally > align JDK LTS versions to our versioning. Also, depends on people > availability and testing resources when and what versions we will maintain > our builds with. (And when and what Cassandra releases we will have, too) > > Regarding the - “do not change what we vote for in the middle of the vote” > - I agree, this is not the way to do it. But honestly I did not perceive > this voting as such a case. I also knew about the agreement that any > breaking changes will be discussed on the dev mailing list prior removal > and we try to be backward compatible as much as possible. > > On Wed, 23 Apr 2025 at 18:02, Jeremiah Jordan <jerem...@apache.org> wrote: > > > The JVM version also isn’t a feature to deprecate, technically. > I agree with this. I think the JVM version the server runs under and how > we cycle those is a separate discussion from feature deprecation. > > There can and has been some overlap there that would need to be handled on > a case by case basis (when a new JVM removed something that we did not have > a good way to keep doing without it, talking about you scripting runtime > based UDFs), but in general I don’t think switching JVMs is the same as > feature removal/deprecation. > > -Jeremiah > > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 4:48 PM Jordan West <jw...@apache.org> wrote: > > I agree with Jon that I’m now a bit confused on part of what I voted for. > It feels like there is more discussion to be had here. Or we need to split > it into two votes if we want to make progress on the part where there is > consensus and revisit where there is not. > > Regarding JVM version what I’ve mostly seen as reasons against forcing a > JVM upgrade with a C* upgrade is risk tolerance. Folks bit by past upgrades > have a tendency to want to limit as many variables as possible. From a > technical perspective I’m not sure that’s justified tbh but having been one > of the folks wanting to reduce variables and still getting bit by upgrades > I understand it. The JVM version also isn’t a feature to deprecate, > technically. And having made the decision once to hold off on upgrading the > JVM and regretting it I too would like to see the project try to keep pace > with JVM releases instead of being on older LTS or unsupported versions. > > > Jordan > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 13:49 Jon Haddad <j...@rustyrazorblade.com> wrote: > > > If 5.0 supports 17, then 7.0 should too, if we are to say we support > 5.0 to 7.0 upgrades. > > I have to disagree with this. I don't see a good reason have a tight > coupling of JVM versions to C* versions, and I also don't see a good reason > to overlap outside of CI. Even on CI, the reasoning is a bit weak, Linux > distros have supported multiple JDK versions for at least a decade > (update-java-alternatives on Ubuntu and alternatives on RedHat). > > I've heard several folks explain their reasoning for overlap in JVM > versions, and it just doesn't resonate with me when weighed against the > downsides of being anchored to the limitations imposed by supporting old > JVM versions. > > I don't want this to come back and bite us later - so unless we're > exempting the JVM version from this upgrade requirement, I'm changing my > vote to -1. > > Furthermore, really shouldn't be changing the terms of the thing we're > voting on mid-vote. This feels really weird to me. Anyone who cast a vote > previously may not be keeping up with the ML on a daily basis and it's not > fair to impose changes on them. People should be aware of what they're > voting for and not be surprised when the VOTE is closed. > > Jon > > > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 1:04 PM Mick Semb Wever <m...@apache.org> wrote: > > . > > > This reads to me that Java 17 would need to be deprecated now, continue to > be deprecated in 6.0 (at least one major in deprecated), then removed in > 7.0. > > > > This is technically true. But I don't think we need to be explicitly > deprecating jdk versions. Users are generally aware of Java's LTS cycle, > and we can document this separately. > > Where we are bound is that our upgrade tests require an overlapping common > jdk. So we can only test upgrades that support a common jdk. And 🥁 > IMHO, we should not be saying we recommend/support upgrades that we don't > test (regardless if not having broken compatibility means we think untested > upgrade paths would still work). If 5.0 supports 17, then 7.0 should too, > if we are to say we support 5.0 to 7.0 upgrades. > > > >
