I think 2479 will not make it because it currently breaks Mima. But https://github.com/apache/pekko/pull/2486 seems ok.
I think we should get 1.3.0 out soon, because users may switch to Akka 2.7.0 because of the new behavior api for Java 21's pattern matching. https://github.com/CajunSystems/cajun, a new actor library, advertises that too. 何品 PJ Fanning <[email protected]> 于2025年11月12日周三 17:37写道： > I think PR 2479 is a workable solution. If there are no strong > objections to it, we could get it into 1.3.0. > > Let's delay the RC1 for 1.3.0 for a week or two to allow a discussion to > happen. > > On Wed, 12 Nov 2025 at 09:46, Matthew de Detrich <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > On another note and on the topic of making a javadsl/scaladsl for > > ActorSystem, in > > exploring the option of creating a non-source breaking smooth transition > > from 1.3.0 > > to 2.0.0 I made a PR at https://github.com/apache/pekko/pull/2479, see > > https://github.com/apache/pekko/issues/2093#issuecomment-3520511719 > > > > I think it would be good to make an "executive" decision on the course > > forward, if > > we care about ActorSystem in Pekko 1.3.0 being source compatible with > Pekko > > 2.0.0 then we would need this PR to be merged for 1.3.0. > > > > On the other hand, if we wan't a cleaner API and don't worry about source > > breakage > > in 2.0.0, that PR isn't needed at all and it would also give us some > > breathing room as > > we only need to target Pekko 2.0.0. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 3:31 PM Matthew de Detrich <[email protected] > > > > wrote: > > > > > > I don't personally believe that we need to port everything from Akka > > > releases as they become available under the Apache license. I would > > > prefer to concentrate on bug fixes and test coverage. Enhancements if > > > people want them but I don't think we should grab them without > > > evidence they are wanted by Pekko users. > > > > > > I actually disagree here, although within reason. For me, if there are > > > changes > > > that are isolated and easy to port then we should do that (if someone > is > > > willing > > > to do it), it's better for end users and there is no argument against > it > > > aside from > > > rushing a 1.3.x release. > > > > > > I understand that we need more tests and bug fixes but it's not a zero > sum > > > game, and > > > in any case the Akka devs are very diligent in adding tests to any > > > features that they > > > implement so porting back changes is not going to change our status quo > > > very much. > > > > > > And to close off, I wouldn't rely that much on user feedback when it > comes > > > to Pekko > > > because it's historically not a very good way to gauge what features > users > > > want. > > > Generally speaking people complain when there is a bug/something is not > > > working > > > (my personal theory for behind this is that its a holdover from how > Akka > > > was managed, i.e. > > > Akka being BDFL and driving the project and our users haven't > transitioned > > > to a > > > community mindset fully). > > > > > > Kind regards, > > > Matthew > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 8, 2025 at 8:24 PM PJ Fanning <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > >> I don't personally believe that we need to port everything from Akka > > >> releases as they become available under the Apache license. I would > > >> prefer to concentrate on bug fixes and test coverage. Enhancements if > > >> people want them but I don't think we should grab them without > > >> evidence they are wanted by Pekko users. > > >> > > >> Once Pekko 2.0.0 is out, I don't think we should continue to take Akka > > >> changes over to 1.x unless they fix critical bugs - that they should > > >> only go into 2.x in normal circumstances. > > >> > > >> There is a reasonable chance that Akka 2.8.0 changes will become > > >> Apache licensed before we get to release Pekko 2.0.0. But maybe, it > > >> might focus our minds to get 2.0.0 complete before then. We could then > > >> just add Akka 2.8.0 stuff in a Pekko 2.x release. > > >> > > >> On Sat, 8 Nov 2025 at 20:08, kerr <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > I see, but if we want to support 1.4.0, then we will have much to > port, > > >> eg, > > >> > Akka 2.8.0 needs to be ported to Pekko 1.4.x too . > > >> > And we don't have the same setup, eg, sortImports, Scala versions, > Java > > >> > formatter, and Scala formatter, etc., which causes cherry picking a > huge > > >> > burden. > > >> > While porting recently, I had to do many manual sortings to make the > > >> code > > >> > work with 1.3.x > > >> > > > >> > 何品 > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > PJ Fanning <[email protected]> 于2025年11月9日周日 01:43写道： > > >> > > > >> > > 1.x releases will support Java 8. > > >> > > I'm not going to guess what sort of 1.x releases we will need but > we > > >> > > will continue to do 1.x releases including some small enhancements > > >> > > until 2.0.0 full release happens. After 2.0.0 is out, I think it > is > > >> > > fairly likely that we will only fix bugs in 1.x and this will > likely > > >> > > mean only occasional patch releases. > > >> > > We could easily end up with 1.3.1 or 1.4.0 releases and possibly > > >> beyond. > > >> > > > > >> > > On Sat, 8 Nov 2025 at 14:37, kerr <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Is Pekko 1.3.0 the last release that we plan to support Java 8? > > >> > > > > >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > >> > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > >> > > >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
