Okay. I checked the pull request that you linked and there’s a lot more in that most of which I don’t even understand. I suggest the following:
- let’s finish that PR by adding minimum build version of JDK 11 for now, - merge the PR to all active branches: master, branch-3.9 and branch-3.8, - release 3.9.4 and 3.8.5, - create another patch which bumps the minimum build _and_ runtime version to JDK 17 on the master branch only, - release 3.10.0. wdyt? I’d like to keep the minimum required build version to JDK 11 on the stable branches 3.8 and 3.9. Does it make any sense? Andor > On Aug 19, 2025, at 13:12, Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> wrote: > > Thanks for bringing my suggestion to the mailing list for discussion. > > I wasn't aware that 17 was being considered. Is there another > discussion thread I can read about that? > > My suggestion could apply with JDK 17 instead of 11. I didn't suggest > 17 because I thought 11 would be more acceptable as a smaller > incremental jump. However, if there is already a goal to move to 17, > then applying my suggestion with JDK 17 as the minimum would be a good > first step. Making the minimum build version 11 or 17 could be done on > all active branches. Changing the target runtime version to 11 or 17 > should only happen in the main branch, and can be done later, when the > project is ready for that. Bumping the minimal build version is > independent of bumping the target version for runtime. > > The Maven enforcer setting task is run automatically with newer Apache > parent POMs (see > https://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/apache/35/apache-35.pom). ZK > uses an older version and it needs to be updated anyway. > > If bumping the build version to 11 or 17 is agreed, I volunteer to > create a PR for it. I would probably also revisit my earlier PR to > remove maven-antrun-plugin > (https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/2241) because there are some > general POM cleanup stuff in that PR that would probably be good to > borrow from that PR to include in a POM update. > > On Mon, Aug 18, 2025 at 10:37 AM Andor Molnar <an...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> Hi team, >> >> Christopher has a suggestion on the Owasp upgrade PR which I think we should >> discuss here. >> >> TL;DR - Since Owaps requires Java 11 after upgrade, let's bump the minimum >> required Java version for _BUILDING_ ZooKeeper to 11 across all build >> profiles. >> >> That additional change will allow lots of plugins to be updated that require >> newer Java versions, but the maven.compiler.release property set to 8 in the >> ZK pom.xml would still keep ZK compatible with Java 8 at runtime. >> >> … >> >> I think it's an inconvenience to have two separate minimum versions, >> depending on which tasks one executes. Also, there are other reasons to >> standardize on the minimum being JDK11 for everything: >> >> • in this case, only OWASP requires a different minimum JDK... but next >> time, a plugin that is part of the main build might require JDK11. Making >> JDK11 the minimum for everything would help avoid such problems in the >> future, >> • older JDK versions are increasingly harder to acquire in newer >> operating systems and corporate environments where security policies prevent >> the use of older software, so fewer people over time are actually building >> and testing with JDK8; so, continuing to support it is increasingly a waste >> of effort, >> • JDK11 has stricter Java 8 compliance enforcement than JDK 8 does, so >> it's better to build with JDK11 if you want to support JRE8. >> >> See the full conversation here: >> https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/2297 >> >> I think this is acceptable, but not sure if it’s worth the effort since >> we’re going to upgrade to JDK 17 project-wise anyways. >> >> Consider that with this change we have to do the following: >> - modify maven enforcer settings in parent POM, >> - add documentation changes explaining the situation, >> - remove JDK8 github actions, >> - change Apache CI Jenkinsfile and remove JDK 8 builds completely. >> >> It’s also true that JDK 17 upgrade is not going to happen tomorrow. >> >> Please share your thoughts. >> >> Regards, >> Andor >> >> p.s. I don’t find the maven enforcer setting myself which needs to be bumped >> in parent pom, but if someone can point me to it or even create a PR with >> the above mentioned changes, I’d much appreciate that. >> >>
