Re: [DISCUSS] Switch to GitHub issues after trial

On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 9:27 AM, Mike Walch wrote: > > > > Some of the concerns brought up would be answerable with a trial. How do > we > > do a release? What does aggregating issues fixed in a particular version > > look like? > > > > You can tag GH issues with a version but

Re: [DISCUSS] Proposed formatter change: 100 char lines

+1. I prefer a 100 character column limit. It's also the standard in the Google Java Style Guide: https://google.github.io/styleguide/javaguide.html#s4.4-column-limit On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 8:29 AM, J. Mark Owens wrote: > I would be in favor of this change. As my eyes

Re: [DISCUSS] Proposed formatter change: 100 char lines

I would be in favor of this change. As my eyes continue to get weaker, I have to use larger fonts resulting in a lot of the code being off the screen. The constant need to scroll horizontally can get irritating. -- Original Message -- From: "Christopher" To:

Re: [DISCUSS] Release 1.7.4 and the 1.9.0

SGTM On 2/15/18 11:10 PM, Ed Coleman wrote: I'd like to propose that we start the release process for 1.7.4 and then 1.9.0. I'm willing to be the release manager for both if that would facilitate things. As a strawman - I propose: March 1st - we start the formal release process of

Re: [DISCUSS] Proposed formatter change: 100 char lines

I'm opposed to requiring Java 8 to build on branches that we claim support running under Java 7. Historically relying on "compile for earlier target JDK" has just led to pain down the road when it inevitably doesn't work. Just make it a recommendation for contributions and have our precommit

Re: [DISCUSS] Switch to GitHub issues after trial

I am going to try to answer your questions. Keep in mind that my answers are how I would handle the transition. The point of the trial is to iterate and find the best solution for everyone. > Some of the concerns brought up would be answerable with a trial. How do we > do a release? What does

Re: [DISCUSS] Proposed formatter change: 100 char lines

+1 to not changing min-Java on the release lines that supported Java 7. Let's just cease activity on these branches instead :) On 2/16/18 9:55 AM, Sean Busbey wrote: I'm opposed to requiring Java 8 to build on branches that we claim support running under Java 7. Historically relying on

Re: [DISCUSS] Release 1.7.4 and the 1.9.0

Thanks Ed, this all sounds good. Does anyone need a 1.8.2 release? On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 2:43 AM Keith Turner wrote: > I am +1 on the dates you proposed and i can run test on EC2 for both > releases. I would like to see 1.9.0 released earlier than you > suggested. > > As

Re: [DISCUSS] Release 1.7.4 and the 1.9.0

+1. I think your dates are good deadlines. We should start the process sooner if everyone is ready. I can help work on the release notes for both releases. On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 11:10 PM, Ed Coleman wrote: > I'd like to propose that we start the release process for 1.7.4

Re: [DISCUSS] Proposed formatter change: 100 char lines

FWIW, we use the animal-sniffer plugin to verify full Java 7 compatibility to avoid those historical issues with simply setting the target JDK. But, I also understand if that plugin does not instill sufficient confidence for Java 7 compatibility. I can do the format-only-in-jdk8-profile strategy,