Hello, -1 also for me, I change my vote
Regards Thanks On Thursday, October 24, 2019, Felix Schumacher < [email protected]> wrote: > As Philippe finds it useful too. I will vote > > -1 > > We should do another rc. > > @vladimir is the release plugin ready to use with the changed sha512 > files? > > > Felix > > Am 24. Oktober 2019 21:23:27 MESZ schrieb Milamber <[email protected]>: > > > >I can cancel the RC4 vote or a PMC member can put a -1 (veto) to the > >release. > >Currently if I count my (future) vote +1 and the 2 +1 from Vladimir and > > > >Philippe, the RC4 will pass the vote. > > > >What is your (PMC member) preference? > > > >On 23/10/2019 16:28, Philippe Mouawad wrote: > >> Hello, > >> > >> I think we should do another rc restoring browser component. > >> > >> I find it helpful when debugging a script. > >> > >> So unless there is a blocker, it should be restored. > >> > >> Thanks > >> > >> On Wednesday, October 23, 2019, Felix Schumacher < > >> [email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> Am 23.10.19 um 15:12 schrieb Vladimir Sitnikov: > >>>>> I already use the Oracle Java 8 to build the releases (RC4 > >include) > >>>> Well. By "Require release manager" I mean **every** release > >manager. > >>>> For instance, I have not purchased Java license from Oracle. Does > >that > >>> mean > >>>> I must buy one in order to be the release manager? > >>> You don't have to buy a license to use the last openly available JDK > >8 > >>> from Oracle. But it might be difficult to download it. (I found a > >link > >>> to the archive under the FAQ from the download for Java 8. > >>> https://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/archive-139210.html ) > >>>> The next question is what if someone downloads JMeter sources and > >tries > >>> to > >>>> build it? > >>> That depends -- as earlier -- on the version of used Java. At the > >moment > >>> you will only get a working JavaFX control, if you use Oracle JDK 8 > >>> (plus the parameter). > >>>> Does that mean they must use Oracle Java? > >>> No (if they are not interested in that special control) > >>>> Does that mean they should get build failure when using builds like > >>>> AdoptOpenJDK? > >>> No (it didn't with the ant build -- I think we checked for a JavaFX > >>> class on the classpath to decide whether we should compile it) > >>>> The current implementation is "JavaFX opt-in". > >>> At the moment I tend to include it on building the release, but I > >have > >>> sympathy with your arguments, that JavaFX is really difficult to use > >at > >>> build/run time. > >>> > >>> I am less sure with every time we are talking about it, that it is > >>> valuable enough to keep the feature. > >>> > >>> But if we drop it now from the release, we should mention it in the > >>> change logs and hope that someone comes up with an alternative, that > >we > >>> can include some day. > >>> > >>> Felix > >>> > >>>> Vladimir > >>>> >
