I understand. Jetty has been pretty aggressive at updating to jakarta and newer Java versions. It's hard to keep Jetty up-to-date. What do you think about just calling it 4.0 and skipping 3.10?
On Tue, Aug 19, 2025 at 9:14 PM Andor Molnar <an...@apache.org> wrote: > We cannot upgrade Jetty if we stay on JDK11, which is my biggest concern > about it. > > > > > > On Aug 19, 2025, at 19:11, Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > Sorry for the confusion. I linked that PR mostly for my own reference > > to review to make a new PR. You can ignore that PR for now. I would > > create a new one for this. I was getting ahead of myself, because I > > know that bumping the minimum build version would also include a bump > > of the Apache parent POM, which also means some other related POM > > cleanup. That linked Draft PR is not related to this, except it > > contains some general POM cleanup that would be good to include when > > bumping the Apache parent POM. > > > > I was thinking: > > > > * release 3.8.5 (that will not benefit from these changes, and needs > > to be EOL ASAP) > > * optionally release 3.9.4 (this action is not a blocker for 3.9) > > * create a PR that bumps the Apache parent POM, establishes the > > minimalJavaBuildVersion as 11 (or 17), and performs related POM > > cleanup (keep Java 8 as the target version) > > * apply that PR to 3.9 and master > > * create a PR that bumps the target version for Java to 11, and apply > > to master only > > * release 3.10 > > > > I would not bump the target Java version for runtime to 17 for the > > 3.10 branch. I would wait for 4.0 for that. I would keep it at 11. The > > build version can be 11 or 17. > > > > On Tue, Aug 19, 2025 at 6:18 PM Andor Molnar <an...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > >> 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. > >>>> > >>>> > >> > >
