It wasn’t clear to me if #1 was in terms of supporting developing Java apps based on JDK 8 or for running NetBeans on JDK 8. I think support for developing apps on JDK 8 is important, but I don’t think it makes sense to hold the NB platform to build/run on JDK 8.
Scott > On Jun 24, 2020, at 7:15 PM, Laszlo Kishalmi <laszlo.kisha...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Thank you, it is good to hear such feedback from time to time. > > #1 - That shall be a question to the community, but I do not see anything > against to support if nothing else the platform on JDK8 for a long while. > Though I'd be happy if we can get rid of patches/workarounds made for > pre-JDK8-s. There are a few UI ones. And as though not in the platform, but > probably we shall remove the support for the 1.5 JVM profiling as it is > parallel with the 1.6+ JVM profiling thing we have. > > #2 - I feel as well that the versioning scheme should be fixed somehow. The > current scheme is confusing, unfortunately changing the current scheme just a > little would be more confusing. Probably we shall really go with date based > version numbers... > > #3 - Huh, that would be a though one. Righ now LTS is supported until the > next LTS. If we produce one LTS per year, with 3 year support that would mean > we need to support 3 releases at the same time. That again needs to be > discusses in the community, I'm sure that with the current setup we have no > resources for that. Actually I'd be happy if we can prove that we are able to > make regular patch releases to the LTS first. > > #4 - That's true, probably we can set up some process to decide what can and > cannot go into the platform. Flatlaf was my bad we can mode it out somewhere > else. Batik on the other hand brings the SVG support, and actually those libs > are heavy. I do not know if we can separate those out, but we need that HiDPI > support. > > >> On 6/23/20 6:56 AM, Jaroslav Tulach wrote: >> Hello Neil, >> I'd like to understand what my colleagues requirements on LTS are as well! >> There seems to be some inherent mismatch when we talk about it, so I am not >> really sure. But let's try: >> >> #1 - we need support for JDK8 - everytime we upgrade I have to prove that >> JDK8 is still supported and treated seriously. There is a fear that Apache >> NetBeans community drops support for JDK8 and we'll be stuck with some >> ancient version of NetBeans Platform. >> >> #2 - LTS releases: GraalVM also uses x.0, x.1, x.2, x.3 versioning scheme >> however the LTS version is x.3 - my colleagues find it hard to understand >> that NetBeans LTS is 12.0 which is just a bugfix version on top of 11.3. >> >> #3 - LTS should last long. At least for three years like Ubuntu. It seems >> to me that there is a fear of upgrading. Ideally my colleagues would like >> to get just bugfixes without essential upgrades >> >> #4 - growing platform - VisualVM guys and IGV guys complained that 11.3 & >> 12.0 platform is too big - that it now contains Batik & FlatL&F - in >> general people don't want the platform to grow. >> >> That's what I remember right now. Once we switch to 12.0 (autumn?), we'll >> need bugfixes that would become 12.0.1, 12.0.2, etc. I believe we (me or >> some of my colleagues) can act as release co-ordinators, if that helps. >> >> -jt >> >> >> po 22. 6. 2020 v 12:26 odesílatel Neil C Smith <neilcsm...@apache.org> >> napsal: >> >>> On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 at 11:10, Jaroslav Tulach <jaroslav.tul...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> do we plan to provide patches to 12.0 version? E.g. 12.0.x versions with >>>> only selected bugfixes? What's the process of getting a fix in? For >>> example >>>> https://github.com/apache/netbeans/pull/2210 is something I'd like to >>> see >>>> included. >>> Assuming we do what we've done previously, second PR on top of >>> release120 branch after that's gone in to master. May or may not >>> require changes - eg. different spec version for modules. >>> >>> We also did a full source zip release for 11.2-u1, which I presume is >>> what you would need here? >>> >>>> OracleLabs is planning to update to 12.0 LTS, but the team would like to >>>> understand how support for the LTS is going to work and for how long the >>>> fixes are going to be produced? >>> We originally agreed until 13.0, so 12 months, for critical fixes. But ... >>> >>> See the recent thread Laszlo initiated - maybe we still need to >>> clarify some things around release processes and what an LTS means? >>> Given I included LTS in the original release schedule proposal, with >>> some concerns about the need, our capacity, and our lack of a clear >>> definition of what it means, I'd be interested in what OracleLabs >>> requirements of an LTS are? >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> Neil >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@netbeans.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@netbeans.apache.org >>> >>> For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit: >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists >>> >>> >>> >>> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@netbeans.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@netbeans.apache.org > > For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit: > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@netbeans.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@netbeans.apache.org For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
