We have 0.94 for JDK 6 diehards. 

I'd be fine with moving to 7+ for 0.98 if there's consensus to do it. 

> On Jun 25, 2014, at 2:38 PM, Nicolas Liochon <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Yeah. It would also be so much simpler when it comes to backporting from
> master to 0.98, and 0.98 could very likely live a long life, a la 0.94. So
> the sooner we're clear on this the better.
> And anyway, Hadoop will likely drop the JDK6 in a 2.x release, so we will
> be stuck with a 2.5 or so if we don't stop the JDK6 support.
> 
> Lastly, HBase 0.94 is still alive and kicking for the 1.6 lovers.
> 
>> We can vote.  Could also just decide.
> 
> Let's try to decide here. If I understand correctly, for 1.0 we're done: we
> don't support JDK6
> For 0.98, I chatted offline with Enis & Stack, dropping the JDK6 support is
> not a showstopper for them.
> Andrew would be ok as well.
> 
> So is it at least acceptable for all of us to drop the JDK6 support in 0.98
> and 1.0?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Nicolas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 9:54 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>> Back in time of JDK6 GA - when I was still working in Sun's JDK team - we
>> had
>> companies sitting on 1.4 and paying _a lot_ of money for Sun support of it.
>> So...
>> 
>> That said, I think moving to JDK7 is pretty much has happened already for
>> HBase, because e.g. 0.98.2 can not be build with JDK6 because we see
>>  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-8479
>> in Bigtop CI.
>> 
>> Cos
>> 
>>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:29AM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
>>> Er, I mean no user should be running on a runtime less than 7, they are
>> all
>>> EOL...
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Nicolas Liochon <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Should we be 1.7 only for trunk / 1.0?
>>>>> This would mean using the 1.7 features.
>>>> 
>>>> I think this is prudent. Hadoop common is having a similar discussion
>> and
>>>> I think converging on consensus that they would be ok with their trunk
>>>> including features only available in 7.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> What about .98?
>>>> 
>>>> ​I don't think this is an option, because although no user should be
>>>> running with a 7 runtime (and in fact performance conscious users
>> should be
>>>> looking hard at 8), vendors will still have to support customers on 6.
>> ​
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> 
>>>>   - Andy
>>>> 
>>>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
>> Hein
>>>> (via Tom White)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Best regards,
>>> 
>>>   - Andy
>>> 
>>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
>>> (via Tom White)
>> 

Reply via email to