This vote has passed. I opened
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8738.
Thanks all.
On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 1:27 AM Varun Thacker wrote:
>
> +1
>
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 9:47 AM David Smiley wrote:
>>
>> +1 -- great point about Lucene/Solr's next major release being a ways off;
>>
+1
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 9:47 AM David Smiley
wrote:
> +1 -- great point about Lucene/Solr's next major release being a ways off;
> this makes the decision pretty easy.
>
> ~ David Smiley
> Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 19,
+1 -- great point about Lucene/Solr's next major release being a ways off;
this makes the decision pretty easy.
~ David Smiley
Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 2:23 PM Adrien Grand wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Now that Lucene/Solr 8.0
+1. It’s really the same argument as always, right? We can’t stay
on the same version forever. It’s a little embarrassing to be on
something that’s EOL. Ignoring the Oracke/OpenJDK question.
Speaking of which, I’m still looking for responses to “what versions
of Java from what organization does
+1 and thanks for cleaning this up Uwe.
the MR-JAR can be a good solution to use newer methods where available
in specific cases, but it does not solve everything. We should allow
opportunities in master branch such as potentially restructuring code
to take advantage of the new module system and
+1
Mike McCandless
http://blog.mikemccandless.com
On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 2:23 PM Adrien Grand wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Now that Lucene/Solr 8.0 has shipped I'd like us to consider requiring
> Java 11 for 9.0, currently the master branch. We had 18 months between
> 7.0 and 8.0, so if we assume a
+1 - Java 8 EOLed last year - moving on in 2020 is reasonable and it's our
responsibility to move with the platform we are running on.
simon
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 9:27 AM Jan Høydahl wrote:
> +1
>
> --
> Jan Høydahl, search solution architect
> Cominvent AS - www.cominvent.com
>
> 19. mar.
+1
--
Jan Høydahl, search solution architect
Cominvent AS - www.cominvent.com
> 19. mar. 2019 kl. 19:22 skrev Adrien Grand :
>
> Hello,
>
> Now that Lucene/Solr 8.0 has shipped I'd like us to consider requiring
> Java 11 for 9.0, currently the master branch. We had 18 months between
> 7.0 and
Hi Shawn,
If I ask the question the other way around: what does it buy us to
keep Java 8 as a minimum version requirement for Lucene/Solr 9.0? This
would only be helpful to users who can afford to upgrade to the latest
Lucene/Solr release but can't use a JDK version that will be about 2
years old
On 3/19/2019 12:22 PM, Adrien Grand wrote:
Now that Lucene/Solr 8.0 has shipped I'd like us to consider requiring
Java 11 for 9.0, currently the master branch. We had 18 months between
7.0 and 8.0, so if we assume a similar interval between 8.0 and 9.0
that would mean releasing 9.0 about 2 years
+1
On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 11:53 PM Adrien Grand wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Now that Lucene/Solr 8.0 has shipped I'd like us to consider requiring
> Java 11 for 9.0, currently the master branch. We had 18 months between
> 7.0 and 8.0, so if we assume a similar interval between 8.0 and 9.0
> that would
I’d like to ask people to comment on SOLR-12809 (actually, maybe it should be a
Lucene JIRA). It’s related in that we are getting more and more questions about
whether Solr/Lucene version X works with Java Y….
We need to have a consistent story, inquiring minds want to know….
> On Mar 19,
+1, let's do it.
I can take care of commenting out the MR-JAR parts and migrating from
lucene.Future* to java.util.* (but we should not remove it from build files,
so we can use MR-JARS in the same way in future).
Just open an issue once the vote has passed, I'l take care of removing the
+1
> On 19 Mar 2019, at 18:22, Adrien Grand wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Now that Lucene/Solr 8.0 has shipped I'd like us to consider requiring
> Java 11 for 9.0, currently the master branch. We had 18 months between
> 7.0 and 8.0, so if we assume a similar interval between 8.0 and 9.0
> that would
14 matches
Mail list logo
