And this brings us back the the whole question of how to number NB releases.

In my opinion the NB version should reflect the JDK it supports.  NB is a
Java application that just happens to provide facilities for people to
write plug-ins who want to do non-Java stuff like c/c++, Python, PHP,
ecmascript, etc. etc.  Those plugins can be numbered any way the author
wants to number them.

I assume NB9 will be forked as the starting point for NB11.  That does not
imply that NB9 will go away or cease to exist.  Anybody who wants to
back-port features for NB9 may do so but NB11 should be an advertisement
that it will build on and develop for the JDK11 feature-set and VM.  There
is no reason NB versioning needs to reflect non-Java plug-in versioning.
And there should be no assumption that a plug-in for NB9 will build or run
on NB11.  As the Java feature-set expands/contracts moving forward,
breakage is bound to happen and backward compatibility will have to break
as well.  The feature-set differences between 8 and 9 are a very good
example.  The new HTTPClient class in 11 is another very good example.  I
can't tell at a glance if something called NB9 or NB2018.3 or.... will
develop or build on the current JDK if the versioning does not make it
clear.  On the other hand, if NB9.2 includes features from JDK12 that do
not break backward compatibility before NB12 is released what's not to like?

Perhaps I'm too naive about git but from what I've read this seems like a
relatively simple and intuitive way to move NB forward as the pace of Java
development increases and versions move forward.  I've read all the other
positions in the previous thread and none of them is convincing in my
opinion.  Releasing often is good and version numbers should have meaning.


On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 10:39 AM Svata Dedic <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> we / you should also consider, before dropping JDK8 as a runtime
> platform, that applications that build ON TOP of NetBeans platform may
> have a way conservative requirements than developers who strive to use
> the bleeding technology edge.
>
>
>
>

Reply via email to