Hi,
Am Dienstag, dem 11.04.2023 um 11:27 + schrieb Glenn Holmer:
> My hope is that the JDK8 gang will see
> the error of their ways and come back to the fold after losing the vote.
please lets stay civil here.
I think it is clear, that there is disagreement, but that does not
mean, that one
Yes, they're loading a ton of org.netbeans.modules.cnd modules, which
may be keeping them on older versions of NetBeans Platform, meaning
that they can't move to later JDKs anyway.
Gj
On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 2:19 PM Neil C Smith wrote:
>
> On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 at 13:07, Geertjan Wielenga
>
On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 at 13:07, Geertjan Wielenga
wrote:
> INFO [org.netbeans.core.startup.NbEvents]: Turning on modules:
> org.openide.util.lookup [8.25.1 20221005-cd0c929e4999]
Thanks. Old style spec versions (although more recently compiled!)
So that module is currently 8.54. I think it was
INFO [org.netbeans.core.startup.NbEvents]: Turning on modules:
org.openide.util.lookup [8.25.1 20221005-cd0c929e4999]
org.openide.util [8.39.1 20221005-cd0c929e4999]
org.openide.modules [7.43.1 20221005-cd0c929e4999]
org.netbeans.api.annotations.common/1 [1.24.1 20221005-cd0c929e4999]
On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 at 12:43, Geertjan Wielenga
wrote:
> To Karl's question -- the cool new look and feels are not included in
> the latest Microchip MPLAB X IDE, so it's quite an old version of the
> NetBeans Platform, ...
Not necessarily. You have to actively opt in to those. I implemented
I'd say those that are arguing for JDK 8 are representing the
traditional NetBeans focus on compatibility and supporting the full
range of Java LTS versions.
However, unless they step in to actively work on that with others,
that is not sustainable given the sheer number and pace of Java
releases
On 4/11/23 05:55, Geertjan Wielenga wrote:
> Well, what we're trying to do here is keep the whole project together
> and not branch, which comes down to forking.
When there's an irreconcilable argument about the direction of a
project, it's the only solution. My hope is that the JDK8 gang will
Can you see in the installed MPLAB app what NetBeans Platform version
they use?
Karl
On 11.04.2023 13:02, Geertjan Wielenga wrote:
I download and installed MPLAB X IDE by Microchip today, probably one
of the most widely used NetBeans Platform applications, where I see
this:
Product Version:
I download and installed MPLAB X IDE by Microchip today, probably one
of the most widely used NetBeans Platform applications, where I see
this:
Product Version: MPLAB X IDE v6.05
Updates: Updates available
Java: 1.8.0_345; OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM 25.345-b01
Runtime: OpenJDK Runtime Environment
Well, what we're trying to do here is keep the whole project together
and not branch, which comes down to forking.
Gj
On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 12:19 PM Glenn Holmer
wrote:
>
> On 4/10/23 10:19, László Kishalmi wrote:
> > There is a way to support old software, and that is called branching.
> >
On 4/10/23 10:19, László Kishalmi wrote:
> There is a way to support old software, and that is called branching.
> It is that simple.
If the JDK8 gang had the courage of their convictions, they'd have
forked by now instead of pulling the whole project down. They could call
it DeadBeans.
--
Glenn
On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 at 07:41, Geertjan Wielenga
wrote:
> Could a consensus solution be that for all JDK 8 - compatibility
> related items, any/all work related to that, we assign those issues to
> Svata -- and we try this for one release and see how that goes? If it
> fails, then in the release
Hi all,
Could a consensus solution be that for all JDK 8 - compatibility
related items, any/all work related to that, we assign those issues to
Svata -- and we try this for one release and see how that goes? If it
fails, then in the release after that, we should all then have
consensus to move
On 10.04.23 06:20, Michael Bien wrote:
Don't let maven distract us here, I only kept mentioning it since that
was the area I have been working on. The whole java ecosystem moves
on: Jetty, Jakarta EE, Spring, Jenkins, Maven, Lucene, (...)
Since I just read the news in my RSS reader:
ecj,
On 10.04.23 12:45, Neil C Smith wrote:
Seriously, we're left with vote this week (maybe with amendment) or
punt the decision for another 3 months to happen with NB20. I'm
curious what people who've +1'd this so far would prefer to do after
taking into account your points / suggestions? I
Well, there is no hatred here, it is a heated debate.
It's just beyond my understanding that people with 20+ years of software
development experience don't see branching as a viable option.
It seems we could not have convinced some of us on our proposal, that's sad.
I'm getting tired of this
On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 1:41 PM Svata Dedic
wrote:
> On 10. 04. 23 19:35, Scott Palmer wrote:
> > Note that the one example we have been given so far of "Microchip IDE",
> if
> > it is what I think it is "MPLAB X IDE" (
> > https://www.microchip.com/en-us/tools-resources/develop/mplab-x-ide),
>
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023, 17:45 Jaroslav Tulach,
wrote:
> Thank you Sváťa for writing this email. It open another "can of worms" in
> the "lazy consensus" thread - in my opinion clearly rendering the "lazy
> consensus" as obsolete.
>
In Apache projects, "consensus" means *widespread agreement among
On 10. 04. 23 19:35, Scott Palmer wrote:
Note that the one example we have been given so far of "Microchip IDE", if
it is what I think it is "MPLAB X IDE" (
https://www.microchip.com/en-us/tools-resources/develop/mplab-x-ide), then
it seems to have Windows 10, Ubuntu 16.04, macOs 10.15 as
Just to be clear, there is no "hate" on my part. I know the "tone" is hard
to communicate via email. I just disagree that Java 8 support should
continue in the main codebase.
When I suggest that a Java 8 compatible fork is how to proceed, I wish you
all the best of success with it. If you have
Hi,
So are these "hundreds of people" Oracle customers, Toni customers, both
Oracle and Toni customers or any other kind of users, say open source
projects?
Thanks,
Antonio
On 8/4/23 14:04, Jaroslav Tulach wrote:
You have met hundreds of people using NetBeans Platform in your career (more
What is actually the JDK 8 exit strategy of those who vetoed? Since so
far none was given.
options:
a) there is none, the NetBeans project ends when JDK 8 ends (or before
that; this would explain frgaal etc)
b) NetBeans waits until JDK 8 ends, and is then migrated in big bang
fashion to JDK
Thank you Sváťa for writing this email. It open another "can of worms" in
the "lazy consensus" thread - in my opinion clearly rendering the "lazy
consensus" as obsolete.
I still need a bit of time to think about using your email strategically,
but in any case I'm happy. I am no longer the only
On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 7:26 AM Karl Tauber wrote:
> +1
>
> On 10.04.2023 14:08, Svata Dedic wrote:
> > I am advocating not to drop JDK8 as runtime for NetBeans (extended)
> > Platform, as that decision affects NetBeans-based applications.
> > Microchip IDE, that mining analytic stuff we had
+1
On 10.04.2023 14:08, Svata Dedic wrote:
I am advocating not to drop JDK8 as runtime for NetBeans (extended)
Platform, as that decision affects NetBeans-based applications.
Microchip IDE, that mining analytic stuff we had presentation a long
time ago (but that still IMHO lives), and
Hi,
Am Montag, dem 10.04.2023 um 13:02 +0200 schrieb Geertjan Wielenga:
> My feeling on this discussion is that, yes, it’s unfortunate that we’re
> getting to fruitful discussion only at this late stage — but better late
> than never and without this useful thread we wouldn’t have been getting
>
On 10. 04. 23 5:40, Laszlo Kishalmi wrote:
It is also being said that "The IDE will continue to support users
developing projects for/with JDK 8, for as long as nb-javac and other
dependencies allow." . I think the team would understand if we keep our
Gradle Tooling library on JDK8 level for
My feeling on this discussion is that, yes, it’s unfortunate that we’re
getting to fruitful discussion only at this late stage — but better late
than never and without this useful thread we wouldn’t have been getting
where we’re getting at all.
Could one way forward be to do a Zoom call with all
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 at 00:16, Svata Dedic wrote:
> Please remember that the published proposal not only covered JDK8's
> fate, which we argue about right now, but also the idea to drop JDK11 in
> 2024. So take my
>
> * -1 (at the moment) for JDK8 phase out with NB19;
> * and ANOTHER -1 to the
On 10.04.23 06:20, Michael Bien wrote:
Hi Svata,
thanks for your detailed response, my reply is inline
On 10.04.23 01:16, Svata Dedic wrote:
I would also (now) ask to restrict from advocating language goodies
agreed. This whole discussion is almost exclusively about APIs and
bytecode
Hi Svata,
thanks for your detailed response, my reply is inline
On 10.04.23 01:16, Svata Dedic wrote:
I would also (now) ask to restrict from advocating language goodies
agreed. This whole discussion is almost exclusively about APIs and
bytecode levels. Language features come just as side
Dear Svata,
First of all, I would like you thank you for offering work to support
keep JDK8 alive!
Though reading through your mail, I'd wonder how JDK was able to evolve
beyond Java 8 it had 80+ percent usage in 2018.
The secret is that they forked/branched JDK. As you mentioned there
Please remember that the published proposal not only covered JDK8's
fate, which we argue about right now, but also the idea to drop JDK11 in
2024. So take my
* -1 (at the moment) for JDK8 phase out with NB19;
* and ANOTHER -1 to the JDK11 plans as presented in this thread (but
that should be
On Sat, 8 Apr 2023 at 13:05, Jaroslav Tulach wrote:
> ...is going to break the promise me, you
> and the NetBeans team was giving NetBeans Platform users since 1997!
Aside from wondering how dropping JDK 7 support was not breaking the
same promise, my message to Toni would be roughly the same as
Thank you Toni for stepping out and publicly sharing your experience as a long
time NetBeans Platform consultant.
You have met hundreds of people using NetBeans Platform in your career (more
than I met) and you know how important backward compatibility is for their
decisions and their trust in
welcome back,
it might be worth mentioning that:
- From Apache NetBeans 19, the minimum JDK required to build and run
the IDE will be JDK 11.
is how we operate since NetBeans 12.x, nobody has to wait for NetBeans
19 for that. I am only pointing this out since some vetoes come from
members
-1
I agree with Jarda. Having the portability for platforms like Android is
important, and I support the proposed alternative.
Von: Jaroslav Tulach
Datum: Mittwoch, 5. April 2023 um 17:13
An: dev
Betreff: Re: [Lazy Consensus] Minimum JDK build and run policy (dropping JDK 8)
-1
Background:
37 matches
Mail list logo
