Thanks for providing a patch for that issue. It will be in .4 as soon as we can get it out the door. I was initially planning to start the RC vote for .4 on Monday 6/30, but we have a new blocker (patch should come in tomorrow), and I can see from a bisect-in-progress that a change committed since the last release has destabilized our test suite, so there may be a delay of a few days.
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 6:45 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <[email protected]> wrote: > That's certainly a possibility. With JDK6U45 everything works. > And I have stepped on HBASE-11418 ;( > > On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 11:52AM, Andrew Purtell wrote: > > 0.98 compiles using the recent version of Java 6, 6u45. I think there > was a > > compiler bug wrt type erasure introduced somewhere in the middle of that > > lineage that could still be in OpenJDK. In any case, please see > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BIGTOP-1110?focusedCommentId=14044099&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-14044099 > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Andrew Purtell < > [email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Try compiling with Oracle Java 6. Same result ? > > > > > > > On Jun 25, 2014, at 12:54 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) > > > > -- Best regards, - Andy Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White)
