+1 for the docker package to be on Java 11. It's kind of a no-brainer at this point, as Vincent also mentioned, and I'm not sure which would be the disadvantages of doing so.
Re backwards compatibility, I'm not sure that's an issue here, since we're talking about docker containers that you switch entirely (i.e. JVM + server container + etc.). The backwards compatibility discussion is probably more appropriate for the debian/OS-specific packages that need to be upgraded inside the same machine. Thanks, Eduard On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 10:50 AM Vincent Massol <vinc...@massol.net> wrote: > Hi, > > > On 27 Jun 2019, at 09:32, Vincent Massol <vinc...@massol.net> wrote: > > > > Hi guys, > > > > We have a decision to take re the docker image. > > > > Until now we were supporting the arm64v8 architecture. However due to > some changes, it's now ony supported with java11. So we have 2 solutions > for the tomcat base image to use: > > > > 1) stay on java8 and move to the adoptopenjdk base image (so that we get > java patches) BUT drop support for arm64v8 architectures > > 2) move to java11 and move to the adoptopenjdk base image (so that we > get java patches) and keep support for arm64v8 archietectures > > > > My POV is that we should do 1) since XWiki is supposed to run well on > Java11 (it may even be faster on it?) and we want it to work on it anyway. > We also test it with our docker tests every week > > I meant 2) :) > > Thanks > -Vincent > > > > > Side note: we could also decide to move to java11 everywhere on our CI > agents and keep some tests weekly on java8 (ie invert the current situation) > > > > WDYT? > > > > Thanks > > -Vincent > >
