Unrelated for the vote, but since it came up: Oracle isn't the only large corporation to employ high calibre skilled committers on the OpenJDK project. Oracle decides support of its own builds on its own terms, but Red Hat for example supports the JVM for much longer to its customers, and being an OSS friendly company any path which might get developed will be included in some publicly available maintenance branch.
Disclaimer: I work for Red Hat but I'm just mentioning it as someone passionate for Lucene; so I happen to have an idea of the intention of my colleagues working on the OpenJDK project, but I am not representing my employer on this matter: just wanted to point out that after Oracle will end to support Java7, it's not forcing anyone to move away from it, nor forcing to pay money. In fact in my experience it's very common to find users of older Lucene versions on much older JVMs, often supported JVM builds by other vendors, and I don't expect this to change. HTH -- Sanne On 12 September 2014 20:31, Chris Hostetter <hossman_luc...@fucit.org> wrote: > > : That is bogus for an open source project. I won't have such updates, > : how can i support such a java version, users that run into trouble? > : And this does happen often. > : I don't think i should have to pay money and become a paying customer > : to Oracle to support lucene. > > I didn't say you should. I in fact said almost the exact opposite: that > we shouldn't let commercial versions of the JDK have any bearing on our > decision.... > > > > 1) Benson made a reasonable statement that "There are many large > organizations of the sort that use Lucene & Solr that will not be moving > to 8 for years yet" > > 2) you said: "I don't buy "for years yet"." ... impling that such > organizations will *have* to upgrade before then because there won't be > *free* releases of java. > > 3) I tried to point out 2 things: > > a) we shouldn't let the EOL cycle of *one* commercial vendor have any > bearing on our policy of support -- particularly since the refrence > implementation is an open source source project. > > b) that your argument against benson's claims seemed missleading: just > because Oracle is EOLing doesn't mean people won't be using OpenJDK; even > if they are using Oracle's JDK, if they are large comercial organizations > they might pay oracle to keep using it for a long time. > > > > > > -Hoss > http://www.lucidworks.com/ > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
