On Mon, 6 Feb 2023, 22:22 Michael Bien, <mbie...@gmail.com> wrote: > What is needed is to communicate that it is ok to upgrade everything to > JDK11 - which would open the flood gates. >
Maybe. But do we really want a flood of modules with non-default configuration? > The policy was as far as I remember to be ok with new modules starting > out on JDK 11, old modules have to be discussed before move - that is > too much work since NB has ~450 sub-projects. > > Changing this will probably require a vote In my mind it requires a lazy consensus thread, like the previous one. ie. A proposal with no vetoes. Vetoes of course being based on technical arguments or alternative approaches to address the problem. I'm happy to write something up if no-one else does first. I restarted this discussion to try and work out what that should look like. this should be goal of course. Lets move everything to JDK 11 unless it > is used by the platform. > Why do you think the platform should be special cased? I don't think a forward looking statement regarding building > requirements of the IDE is needed tbh. If its left out we don't have to > define exceptions. > In many respects I agree. The important part of any statement is runtime compatibility. However ASF releases sources, so there are some arguments for good advance communication of build requirements too? > > if it works we can do it all at once. I am just a bit skeptical that it > will "just work" given how many edge cases and custom javac calls the > build has to deal with. > True, but that's what I mean by opt-out vs opt-in. Why not keep the custom configuration for the edge cases? > No reason not to try. This is also one of the more time consuming tasks. > Since you have to run a full build and then check via a script that none > of the class files suddenly starts having their version set to 65. > Good job we have a test for that already then! Best wishes, Neil
