The person doing the PR to update the Jenkinsfile should include these changes, which were in the PR for trunk that updated Github Actions to run Java 23
https://github.com/apache/kafka/commit/76a9df47ca6088361fe707a2946827f7558d9f71 Den tors. 3. apr. 2025 kl. 20.17 skrev Stig Rohde Døssing < stigdoess...@gmail.com>: > Looking in the build log, I see this > > Loading trusted files from base branch 3.9 at > 90ee2d2b3499b7e1eff99bc63bf66aba9d7ff99c rather than > f4cd8d5d664a62b280c0d2ea1bc731069443ba87 > Obtained Jenkinsfile from 90ee2d2b3499b7e1eff99bc63bf66aba9d7ff99c > ‘Jenkinsfile’ has been modified in an untrusted revision > > Going by an older blogpost at > https://www.jenkins.io/blog/2022/12/14/require-java-11/, this means that > Jenkins will only test Jenkinsfile changes in PRs submitted by people with > repo write access. > > I've run the tests for the https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/19311 > branch locally, and they pass. So maybe the easiest path forward is to > review (and ideally merge) the following PRs > > https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/19307 > https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/19308 > https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/19309 > https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/19310 > https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/19221 > https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/19365 > https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/19367 (note that this upgrades to > the same Mockito version as used on trunk, while the WIP PR used the latest > Mockito. I don't think it should make a difference, but it seemed weird to > let 3.9 get ahead of the version trunk uses) > > which are the component parts of that branch, except for the Jenkinsfile > update. > > Once these are merged, a committer can do a PR to update the Jenkinsfile > to build on Java 23 as well. > > Den ons. 2. apr. 2025 kl. 17.06 skrev Stig Rohde Døssing < > stigdoess...@gmail.com>: > >> Hi Luke, >> >> I took a look at getting 3.9 to run Java 23 on CI in this PR >> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/19311 which is just 3.9 plus all >> the other backport PRs, plus a few extra backports and changes to get Java >> 23 to build locally. I was planning to raise PRs for these bits >> individually once I had a build working. >> >> But I am roadblocked on getting Jenkins to actually use Java 23. The CI >> run appears to not have picked up the change (see >> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/19311/files#diff-e6ffa5dc854b843b3ee3c3c28f8eae2f436c2df2b1ca299cca1fa5982e390cf8) >> to the script I did in the last commit. I'm not familiar enough with 3.9's >> CI setup to know how to fix it, and I also don't think I have the necessary >> access to Jenkins to go dig into the job configuration to figure it out. >> >> In particular I don't know if >> >> tools { >> jdk 'jdk_23_latest' >> } >> >> is right, because I don't know which JDKs are available on Jenkins, and >> without admin access, I don't believe I can get a list anywhere. >> >> If someone has full access to Jenkins, maybe they can take a look? >> >> Den ons. 2. apr. 2025 kl. 14.04 skrev Dejan Stojadinović < >> dejan2...@gmail.com>: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Just keep in mind that *Gradle version 8.14 *(currently under >>> development) >>> will support *Java 24*: >>> >>> - https://docs.gradle.org/8.13/userguide/compatibility.html >>> - >>> https://github.com/gradle/gradle/issues/32290#issuecomment-2741096604 >>> - >>> https://github.com/gradle/gradle/issues/32289#issuecomment-2741056207 >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 2, 2025 at 1:25 PM Luke Chen <show...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> > Hi Stig and all, >>> > >>> > For backporting the change to 3.9, if there's no objections, I think >>> we can >>> > start to merge them tomorrow. >>> > For the Java 24 testing, it's fine we ship 3.9 without Java 24 test if >>> > gradle release is delayed since this is also the state of what Kafka >>> v4.0 >>> > is. >>> > >>> > So we should firstly test Java 23 in CI for 3.9. @Stig, could you help >>> open >>> > a PR for it? >>> > >>> > Thanks. >>> > Luke >>> > >>> > On Sat, Mar 29, 2025 at 2:29 AM Stig Rohde Døssing < >>> stigdoess...@gmail.com >>> > > >>> > wrote: >>> > >>> > > Thanks. I'll wait for that PR then. Since it's blocked by Gradle, >>> and the >>> > > plan is for Gradle to release a new version on April 7th (see >>> > > >>> https://github.com/gradle/gradle/issues/32289#issuecomment-2741056207), >>> > > maybe the way to go is to aim to test with Java 23 on 3.9 for now? >>> Once >>> > we >>> > > can test with Java 24 on trunk, maybe we can consider backporting the >>> > > necessary changes to 3.9 to get that branch tested against Java 24 as >>> > well, >>> > > and getting it running with Java 23 at least gets us closer. >>> > > >>> > > Regarding CI, I made an attempt at getting Jenkins to run with Java >>> 23 >>> > here >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >>> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/19311/commits/f4cd8d5d664a62b280c0d2ea1bc731069443ba87 >>> > > , >>> > > but it doesn't look like CI is picking up the change. Maybe Jenkins >>> is >>> > > configured to fetch the script from a specific branch? I can't tell >>> > since I >>> > > don't have access to the job configurations. >>> > > >>> > > Den fre. 28. mar. 2025 kl. 19.00 skrev Chia-Ping Tsai < >>> > chia7...@gmail.com >>> > > >: >>> > > >>> > > > hi Stig >>> > > > >>> > > > > Does anyone know where the corresponding CI script >>> > > > files are located in 3.9? >>> > > > >>> > > > https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/3.9/Jenkinsfile#L165 >>> > > > >>> > > > > I noticed that trunk isn't currently testing against Java 24. >>> I'll >>> > try >>> > > to >>> > > > make a PR to fix that, which will probably require another bump of >>> > > > Spotbugs, which may prompt another backport PR. >>> > > > >>> > > > there is already a PR (https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/19235) >>> > > > >>> > > > Best, >>> > > > Chia-Ping >>> > > > >>> > > > Stig Rohde Døssing <stigdoess...@gmail.com> 於 2025年3月29日 週六 >>> 上午12:02寫道： >>> > > > >>> > > > > Chia-Ping, I think we should aim for Java 24 support, since 23 >>> > reaches >>> > > > end >>> > > > > of life in a month or so. >>> > > > > >>> > > > > Here are PRs for 4 of the changes linked at >>> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-17638 >>> > > > > >>> > > > > Scala upgrade https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/19307 >>> > > > > Compiler warning 1 https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/19308 >>> > > > > Compiler warning 2 https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/19309 >>> > > > > Spotbugs update https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/19310 >>> > > > > >>> > > > > The missing backports after that will be >>> > > > > https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/17409 and >>> > > > > https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/17403 >>> > > > > >>> > > > > For the former PR, it cherry picks mostly cleanly, but it won't >>> pass >>> > > > tests >>> > > > > until the other changes are merged. The CI script changes are >>> done to >>> > > > files >>> > > > > that don't exist in 3.9. Does anyone know where the >>> corresponding CI >>> > > > script >>> > > > > files are located in 3.9? >>> > > > > >>> > > > > The latter PR contains only documentation changes calling out >>> that >>> > Java >>> > > > 23 >>> > > > > is now supported. I think we are better off adjusting the docs on >>> > trunk >>> > > > to >>> > > > > say that Java 24 is supported as of 3.9.1 instead of backporting >>> that >>> > > > > change. >>> > > > > >>> > > > > I noticed that trunk isn't currently testing against Java 24. >>> I'll >>> > try >>> > > to >>> > > > > make a PR to fix that, which will probably require another bump >>> of >>> > > > > Spotbugs, which may prompt another backport PR. >>> > > > > >>> > > > > Den fre. 28. mar. 2025 kl. 15.08 skrev Chia-Ping Tsai < >>> > > > chia7...@gmail.com >>> > > > > >: >>> > > > > >>> > > > > > hi Stig >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > We should run CI under Java 23 if we want to make 3.9 support >>> Java >>> > 23 >>> > > > > > officially, so +1 to backport them >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > Best, >>> > > > > > Chia-Ping >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > > Mickael Maison <mickael.mai...@gmail.com> 於 2025年3月28日 >>> 下午6:43 >>> > 寫道： >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > Hi, >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > I'm also supportive of backporting this change to the 3.9 >>> branch. >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > Thanks, >>> > > > > > > Mickael >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> On Fri, Mar 28, 2025 at 10:16 AM Stig Rohde Døssing >>> > > > > > >> <stigdoess...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> Pulling in a discussion from the PR thread: >>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> There were other PRs that were part of Java 23 support >>> > generally, >>> > > > > > should >>> > > > > > >> these also be backported? >>> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-17638 >>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> Greg, thanks for letting me know about these, I was not >>> aware. >>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> I think most likely these changes aren't necessary to allow >>> > Kafka >>> > > to >>> > > > > > run on >>> > > > > > >> Java 23. I believe upgrading Scala is necessary because the >>> > > bundled >>> > > > > ASM >>> > > > > > >> doesn't understand Java 23 bytecode, and the remaining >>> changes >>> > > seem >>> > > > to >>> > > > > > >> relate to either fixing compiler warnings or adding Java 23 >>> to >>> > the >>> > > > > build >>> > > > > > >> matrix. I think backporting these would be a fine idea, but >>> I >>> > > don't >>> > > > > > think >>> > > > > > >> they're blockers for using Kafka on Java 23 or 24. >>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> I'm happy to open PRs to backport these as well (though for >>> the >>> > > > build >>> > > > > > >> matrix, we should use Java 24 now), assuming there's no >>> strong >>> > > > > > opposition >>> > > > > > >> to that? >>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> Den fre. 28. mar. 2025 kl. 05.02 skrev Greg Harris >>> > > > > > >> <greg.har...@aiven.io.invalid>: >>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> Hi All, >>> > > > > > >>> >>> > > > > > >>> I am still strongly in support of backporting this patch >>> as I >>> > > > stated >>> > > > > > in the >>> > > > > > >>> earlier discussion thread. >>> > > > > > >>> >>> > > > > > >>> Thank you Stig, Anton, Danish, Mateusz, Manfred, Monica, >>> > Istvan, >>> > > > > > Vincent, >>> > > > > > >>> Clement, Anshu, Foivos, Drakgoku, Severin, Ozan, Georgios, >>> and >>> > > > > > Guillaume, >>> > > > > > >>> members of our extended community who have commented to >>> discuss >>> > > the >>> > > > > > >>> impact and their support for this patch. >>> > > > > > >>> I inevitably missed some people, such as everyone who has >>> been >>> > > > > > encountering >>> > > > > > >>> and silently working around the problem just from reading >>> these >>> > > > > > threads and >>> > > > > > >>> GitHub issues. >>> > > > > > >>> >>> > > > > > >>> Through our inaction, we have obligated several users to >>> take >>> > > > actions >>> > > > > > to >>> > > > > > >>> work around us: >>> > > > > > >>> * The Trino project dropped two of their products [1, 2] >>> > > > > > >>> * The Quarkus project disabled some tests [3] >>> > > > > > >>> * Quarkus project users downgraded their java version [4] >>> > > > > > >>> * Spring Boot users have installed the system property >>> > workaround >>> > > > [5] >>> > > > > > >>> >>> > > > > > >>> In my opinion this is unacceptable, and it's time for us >>> to fix >>> > > > this. >>> > > > > > >>> >>> > > > > > >>> Thank you Stig for restarting the conversation! >>> > > > > > >>> Greg >>> > > > > > >>> >>> > > > > > >>> [1] https://github.com/trinodb/trino/issues/24419 >>> > > > > > >>> [2] https://github.com/trinodb/trino/issues/24417 >>> > > > > > >>> [3] https://github.com/quarkusio/quarkus/pull/43543 >>> > > > > > >>> [4] >>> > > > > > >>> >>> > > > > > >>> >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > >>> https://github.com/anshupitlia/product-information-system/commit/2c3a8dbd974dce0273f74969ec64b661abafef62 >>> > > > > > >>> [5] >>> > > > > > >>> >>> > > > > > >>> >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > >>> https://github.com/vividus-framework/vividus-build-system/commit/53b7016a0d3b0ba04a23b4b1892e1cf7f62ba0a5 >>> > > > > > >>> >>> > > > > > >>>> On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 7:39 PM Luke Chen < >>> show...@gmail.com> >>> > > > > wrote: >>> > > > > > >>> >>> > > > > > >>>> Hi Stig, >>> > > > > > >>>> >>> > > > > > >>>> Thanks for bringing this to us. >>> > > > > > >>>> I'm +1 for backporting to 3.9 branch since there's no >>> > workaround >>> > > > for >>> > > > > > Java >>> > > > > > >>>> 24. >>> > > > > > >>>> >>> > > > > > >>>> Thanks. >>> > > > > > >>>> Luke >>> > > > > > >>>> >>> > > > > > >>>> >>> > > > > > >>>> >>> > > > > > >>>> On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 1:14 AM Stig Rohde Døssing < >>> > > > > > >>> stigdoess...@gmail.com >>> > > > > > >>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>> wrote: >>> > > > > > >>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>> Thanks Ismail, >>> > > > > > >>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>> I've opened https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/19221 >>> just >>> > to >>> > > > get >>> > > > > > any >>> > > > > > >>>>> test >>> > > > > > >>>>> failures out of the way in case it is decided to do this >>> > > > backport. >>> > > > > > >>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>> I'm hoping people will weigh in with their concerns in >>> this >>> > > > thread >>> > > > > if >>> > > > > > >>>> they >>> > > > > > >>>>> don't like the idea of backporting this change. >>> > > > > > >>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>> Den man. 17. mar. 2025 kl. 16.43 skrev Ismael Juma < >>> > > > > > m...@ismaeljuma.com >>> > > > > > >>>> : >>> > > > > > >>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>>> Hi Stig, >>> > > > > > >>>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>>> Kafka 4.0 is likely to be released in a day or two. Even >>> > so, I >>> > > > > think >>> > > > > > >>> it >>> > > > > > >>>>>> makes sense to revive the backporting thread given the >>> lack >>> > of >>> > > > > > >>>> workaround >>> > > > > > >>>>>> for Java 24. >>> > > > > > >>>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>>> Ismael >>> > > > > > >>>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>>> On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 7:44 AM Stig Rohde Døssing < >>> > > > > > >>>>> stigdoess...@gmail.com >>> > > > > > >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>>> wrote: >>> > > > > > >>>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>>>> Hi, >>> > > > > > >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>>>> Some months ago, a reflective shim was added in >>> > > > > > >>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-17078, in >>> > order >>> > > to >>> > > > > > >>>> support >>> > > > > > >>>>>>> running Kafka with SASL on JDKs that no longer support >>> the >>> > > > > security >>> > > > > > >>>>>>> manager. >>> > > > > > >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>>>> This shim was added only to Kafka 4.0, but backporting >>> was >>> > > > > > >>> discussed >>> > > > > > >>>> in >>> > > > > > >>>>>>> >>> > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/vl43q9wqq4xs67xx61f0t0850y2b037o >>> > > > > . >>> > > > > > >>>>> There >>> > > > > > >>>>>>> was >>> > > > > > >>>>>>> no clear consensus for or against backporting, but it >>> ended >>> > > up >>> > > > > not >>> > > > > > >>>>>>> happening. At the time, users could work around the >>> issue >>> > by >>> > > > > > >>> enabling >>> > > > > > >>>>> the >>> > > > > > >>>>>>> Security Manager again via a command-line flag. >>> > > > > > >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>>>> Java 24, which is planned to release tomorrow, no >>> longer >>> > has >>> > > > this >>> > > > > > >>>>>>> workaround available. >>> > > > > > >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>>>> This leaves users running Java 23 (I am one) in a >>> slightly >>> > > > > > >>>>> uncomfortable >>> > > > > > >>>>>>> spot. >>> > > > > > >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>>>> If Kafka releases 4.0 in the next month, we can rush to >>> > > upgrade >>> > > > > to >>> > > > > > >>>>> that, >>> > > > > > >>>>>>> and hope that the first release has no regressions. >>> > > > > > >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>>>> Otherwise, we will need to downgrade back to Java 21, >>> since >>> > > > > staying >>> > > > > > >>>> on >>> > > > > > >>>>> 23 >>> > > > > > >>>>>>> isn't a good idea past Oracle's quarterly security >>> update >>> > in >>> > > > > April >>> > > > > > >>>> (see >>> > > > > > >>>>>>> https://www.oracle.com/security-alerts/), which will >>> > include >>> > > > > > >>> patches >>> > > > > > >>>>>> that >>> > > > > > >>>>>>> won't be released for Java 23. >>> > > > > > >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>>>> Would there be strong objections to attempting a >>> backport >>> > of >>> > > > this >>> > > > > > >>>> shim >>> > > > > > >>>>>> to a >>> > > > > > >>>>>>> 3.9.x release? >>> > > > > > >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>> >>> > > > > > >>> >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > >>> >>
