You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@hbase.apache.org by Nicolas Liochon <nk...@gmail.com> on 2014/06/25 18:15:55 UTC
jdk 1.7 & trunk
Hi all,
HBASE-11297 just broke the build because it uses a ConcurrentLinkedDeque.
Should we be 1.7 only for trunk / 1.0?
This would mean using the 1.7 features.
What about .98?
We would need to update our precommit env, it still builds with 1.6 today...
Shall we start a vote?
Nicolas
Re: jdk 1.7 & trunk
Posted by Nicolas Liochon <nk...@gmail.com>.
If hadoop does not support the 1.6 we can't support it either.
But we can drop the 1.6 ealier than them...
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here is the thread in hadoop w.r.t. JDK version:
>
> http://search-hadoop.com/m/LgpTk2GHceb2/moving+to+jdk+major&subj=Re+Moving+to+JDK7+JDK8+and+new+major+releases
>
> Sounds like support for JDK6 may be dropped in hadoop-2.6 or hadoop-2.7.
>
> Cheers
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Nick Dimiduk <nd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I think it's time to move master/1.0 to 1.7, though, where is Hadoop on
> > this? We should support 1.6 if we plan to continue to support hadoop
> > versions that support 1.6.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Nicolas Liochon <nk...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > HBASE-11297 just broke the build because it uses a
> ConcurrentLinkedDeque.
> > >
> > > Should we be 1.7 only for trunk / 1.0?
> > > This would mean using the 1.7 features.
> > >
> > > What about .98?
> > >
> > > We would need to update our precommit env, it still builds with 1.6
> > > today...
> > >
> > > Shall we start a vote?
> > >
> > > Nicolas
> > >
> >
>
Re: jdk 1.7 & trunk
Posted by Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com>.
Here is the thread in hadoop w.r.t. JDK version:
http://search-hadoop.com/m/LgpTk2GHceb2/moving+to+jdk+major&subj=Re+Moving+to+JDK7+JDK8+and+new+major+releases
Sounds like support for JDK6 may be dropped in hadoop-2.6 or hadoop-2.7.
Cheers
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Nick Dimiduk <nd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think it's time to move master/1.0 to 1.7, though, where is Hadoop on
> this? We should support 1.6 if we plan to continue to support hadoop
> versions that support 1.6.
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Nicolas Liochon <nk...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > HBASE-11297 just broke the build because it uses a ConcurrentLinkedDeque.
> >
> > Should we be 1.7 only for trunk / 1.0?
> > This would mean using the 1.7 features.
> >
> > What about .98?
> >
> > We would need to update our precommit env, it still builds with 1.6
> > today...
> >
> > Shall we start a vote?
> >
> > Nicolas
> >
>
Re: jdk 1.7 & trunk
Posted by Nick Dimiduk <nd...@gmail.com>.
I think it's time to move master/1.0 to 1.7, though, where is Hadoop on
this? We should support 1.6 if we plan to continue to support hadoop
versions that support 1.6.
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Nicolas Liochon <nk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> HBASE-11297 just broke the build because it uses a ConcurrentLinkedDeque.
>
> Should we be 1.7 only for trunk / 1.0?
> This would mean using the 1.7 features.
>
> What about .98?
>
> We would need to update our precommit env, it still builds with 1.6
> today...
>
> Shall we start a vote?
>
> Nicolas
>
Re: jdk 1.7 & trunk
Posted by Andrew Purtell <an...@gmail.com>.
We have 0.94 for JDK 6 diehards.
I'd be fine with moving to 7+ for 0.98 if there's consensus to do it.
> On Jun 25, 2014, at 2:38 PM, Nicolas Liochon <nk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yeah. It would also be so much simpler when it comes to backporting from
> master to 0.98, and 0.98 could very likely live a long life, a la 0.94. So
> the sooner we're clear on this the better.
> And anyway, Hadoop will likely drop the JDK6 in a 2.x release, so we will
> be stuck with a 2.5 or so if we don't stop the JDK6 support.
>
> Lastly, HBase 0.94 is still alive and kicking for the 1.6 lovers.
>
>> We can vote. Could also just decide.
>
> Let's try to decide here. If I understand correctly, for 1.0 we're done: we
> don't support JDK6
> For 0.98, I chatted offline with Enis & Stack, dropping the JDK6 support is
> not a showstopper for them.
> Andrew would be ok as well.
>
> So is it at least acceptable for all of us to drop the JDK6 support in 0.98
> and 1.0?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Nicolas
>
>
>
>
>
>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 9:54 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> Back in time of JDK6 GA - when I was still working in Sun's JDK team - we
>> had
>> companies sitting on 1.4 and paying _a lot_ of money for Sun support of it.
>> So...
>>
>> That said, I think moving to JDK7 is pretty much has happened already for
>> HBase, because e.g. 0.98.2 can not be build with JDK6 because we see
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-8479
>> in Bigtop CI.
>>
>> Cos
>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:29AM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
>>> Er, I mean no user should be running on a runtime less than 7, they are
>> all
>>> EOL...
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Nicolas Liochon <nk...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Should we be 1.7 only for trunk / 1.0?
>>>>> This would mean using the 1.7 features.
>>>>
>>>> I think this is prudent. Hadoop common is having a similar discussion
>> and
>>>> I think converging on consensus that they would be ok with their trunk
>>>> including features only available in 7.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> What about .98?
>>>>
>>>> I don't think this is an option, because although no user should be
>>>> running with a 7 runtime (and in fact performance conscious users
>> should be
>>>> looking hard at 8), vendors will still have to support customers on 6.
>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>> - Andy
>>>>
>>>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
>> Hein
>>>> (via Tom White)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> - Andy
>>>
>>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
>>> (via Tom White)
>>
Re: jdk 1.7 & trunk
Posted by Nicolas Liochon <nk...@gmail.com>.
Yeah. It would also be so much simpler when it comes to backporting from
master to 0.98, and 0.98 could very likely live a long life, a la 0.94. So
the sooner we're clear on this the better.
And anyway, Hadoop will likely drop the JDK6 in a 2.x release, so we will
be stuck with a 2.5 or so if we don't stop the JDK6 support.
Lastly, HBase 0.94 is still alive and kicking for the 1.6 lovers.
> We can vote. Could also just decide.
Let's try to decide here. If I understand correctly, for 1.0 we're done: we
don't support JDK6
For 0.98, I chatted offline with Enis & Stack, dropping the JDK6 support is
not a showstopper for them.
Andrew would be ok as well.
So is it at least acceptable for all of us to drop the JDK6 support in 0.98
and 1.0?
Thanks,
Nicolas
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 9:54 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org> wrote:
> Back in time of JDK6 GA - when I was still working in Sun's JDK team - we
> had
> companies sitting on 1.4 and paying _a lot_ of money for Sun support of it.
> So...
>
> That said, I think moving to JDK7 is pretty much has happened already for
> HBase, because e.g. 0.98.2 can not be build with JDK6 because we see
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-8479
> in Bigtop CI.
>
> Cos
>
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:29AM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
> > Er, I mean no user should be running on a runtime less than 7, they are
> all
> > EOL...
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Nicolas Liochon <nk...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Should we be 1.7 only for trunk / 1.0?
> > >> This would mean using the 1.7 features.
> > >>
> > >
> > > I think this is prudent. Hadoop common is having a similar discussion
> and
> > > I think converging on consensus that they would be ok with their trunk
> > > including features only available in 7.
> > >
> > >
> > >> What about .98?
> > >>
> > >
> > > I don't think this is an option, because although no user should be
> > > running with a 7 runtime (and in fact performance conscious users
> should be
> > > looking hard at 8), vendors will still have to support customers on 6.
>
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > > - Andy
> > >
> > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> Hein
> > > (via Tom White)
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> >
> > - Andy
> >
> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> > (via Tom White)
>
Re: jdk 1.7 & trunk
Posted by Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>.
Thanks for providing a patch for that issue. It will be in .4 as soon as we
can get it out the door. I was initially planning to start the RC vote for
.4 on Monday 6/30, but we have a new blocker (patch should come in
tomorrow), and I can see from a bisect-in-progress that a change committed
since the last release has destabilized our test suite, so there may be a
delay of a few days.
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 6:45 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org> wrote:
> That's certainly a possibility. With JDK6U45 everything works.
> And I have stepped on HBASE-11418 ;(
>
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 11:52AM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
> > 0.98 compiles using the recent version of Java 6, 6u45. I think there
> was a
> > compiler bug wrt type erasure introduced somewhere in the middle of that
> > lineage that could still be in OpenJDK. In any case, please see
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BIGTOP-1110?focusedCommentId=14044099&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-14044099
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Andrew Purtell <
> andrew.purtell@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Try compiling with Oracle Java 6. Same result ?
> > >
> > > > On Jun 25, 2014, at 12:54 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Back in time of JDK6 GA - when I was still working in Sun's JDK team
> -
> > > we had
> > > > companies sitting on 1.4 and paying _a lot_ of money for Sun support
> of
> > > it.
> > > > So...
> > > >
> > > > That said, I think moving to JDK7 is pretty much has happened
> already for
> > > > HBase, because e.g. 0.98.2 can not be build with JDK6 because we see
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-8479
> > > > in Bigtop CI.
> > > >
> > > > Cos
> > > >
> > > >> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:29AM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
> > > >> Er, I mean no user should be running on a runtime less than 7, they
> are
> > > all
> > > >> EOL...
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Andrew Purtell <
> apurtell@apache.org>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Nicolas Liochon <
> nkeywal@gmail.com>
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> Should we be 1.7 only for trunk / 1.0?
> > > >>>> This would mean using the 1.7 features.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I think this is prudent. Hadoop common is having a similar
> discussion
> > > and
> > > >>> I think converging on consensus that they would be ok with their
> trunk
> > > >>> including features only available in 7.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> What about .98?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I don't think this is an option, because although no user should
> be
> > > >>> running with a 7 runtime (and in fact performance conscious users
> > > should be
> > > >>> looking hard at 8), vendors will still have to support customers
> on 6.
> > >
> > > >>>
> > > >>> --
> > > >>> Best regards,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> - Andy
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> > > Hein
> > > >>> (via Tom White)
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Best regards,
> > > >>
> > > >> - Andy
> > > >>
> > > >> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> Hein
> > > >> (via Tom White)
> > >
>
--
Best regards,
- Andy
Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)
Re: jdk 1.7 & trunk
Posted by Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>.
That's certainly a possibility. With JDK6U45 everything works.
And I have stepped on HBASE-11418 ;(
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 11:52AM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
> 0.98 compiles using the recent version of Java 6, 6u45. I think there was a
> compiler bug wrt type erasure introduced somewhere in the middle of that
> lineage that could still be in OpenJDK. In any case, please see
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BIGTOP-1110?focusedCommentId=14044099&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-14044099
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Andrew Purtell <an...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Try compiling with Oracle Java 6. Same result ?
> >
> > > On Jun 25, 2014, at 12:54 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Back in time of JDK6 GA - when I was still working in Sun's JDK team -
> > we had
> > > companies sitting on 1.4 and paying _a lot_ of money for Sun support of
> > it.
> > > So...
> > >
> > > That said, I think moving to JDK7 is pretty much has happened already for
> > > HBase, because e.g. 0.98.2 can not be build with JDK6 because we see
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-8479
> > > in Bigtop CI.
> > >
> > > Cos
> > >
> > >> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:29AM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
> > >> Er, I mean no user should be running on a runtime less than 7, they are
> > all
> > >> EOL...
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Nicolas Liochon <nk...@gmail.com>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Should we be 1.7 only for trunk / 1.0?
> > >>>> This would mean using the 1.7 features.
> > >>>
> > >>> I think this is prudent. Hadoop common is having a similar discussion
> > and
> > >>> I think converging on consensus that they would be ok with their trunk
> > >>> including features only available in 7.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>> What about .98?
> > >>>
> > >>> I don't think this is an option, because although no user should be
> > >>> running with a 7 runtime (and in fact performance conscious users
> > should be
> > >>> looking hard at 8), vendors will still have to support customers on 6.
> >
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> Best regards,
> > >>>
> > >>> - Andy
> > >>>
> > >>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> > Hein
> > >>> (via Tom White)
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Best regards,
> > >>
> > >> - Andy
> > >>
> > >> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> > >> (via Tom White)
> >
Re: jdk 1.7 & trunk
Posted by Andrew Purtell <an...@gmail.com>.
0.98 compiles using the recent version of Java 6, 6u45. I think there was a
compiler bug wrt type erasure introduced somewhere in the middle of that
lineage that could still be in OpenJDK. In any case, please see
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BIGTOP-1110?focusedCommentId=14044099&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-14044099
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Andrew Purtell <an...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Try compiling with Oracle Java 6. Same result ?
>
> > On Jun 25, 2014, at 12:54 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Back in time of JDK6 GA - when I was still working in Sun's JDK team -
> we had
> > companies sitting on 1.4 and paying _a lot_ of money for Sun support of
> it.
> > So...
> >
> > That said, I think moving to JDK7 is pretty much has happened already for
> > HBase, because e.g. 0.98.2 can not be build with JDK6 because we see
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-8479
> > in Bigtop CI.
> >
> > Cos
> >
> >> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:29AM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
> >> Er, I mean no user should be running on a runtime less than 7, they are
> all
> >> EOL...
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Nicolas Liochon <nk...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Should we be 1.7 only for trunk / 1.0?
> >>>> This would mean using the 1.7 features.
> >>>
> >>> I think this is prudent. Hadoop common is having a similar discussion
> and
> >>> I think converging on consensus that they would be ok with their trunk
> >>> including features only available in 7.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> What about .98?
> >>>
> >>> I don't think this is an option, because although no user should be
> >>> running with a 7 runtime (and in fact performance conscious users
> should be
> >>> looking hard at 8), vendors will still have to support customers on 6.
>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Best regards,
> >>>
> >>> - Andy
> >>>
> >>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> Hein
> >>> (via Tom White)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Best regards,
> >>
> >> - Andy
> >>
> >> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> >> (via Tom White)
>
Re: jdk 1.7 & trunk
Posted by Andrew Purtell <an...@gmail.com>.
Try compiling with Oracle Java 6. Same result ?
> On Jun 25, 2014, at 12:54 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Back in time of JDK6 GA - when I was still working in Sun's JDK team - we had
> companies sitting on 1.4 and paying _a lot_ of money for Sun support of it.
> So...
>
> That said, I think moving to JDK7 is pretty much has happened already for
> HBase, because e.g. 0.98.2 can not be build with JDK6 because we see
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-8479
> in Bigtop CI.
>
> Cos
>
>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:29AM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
>> Er, I mean no user should be running on a runtime less than 7, they are all
>> EOL...
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Nicolas Liochon <nk...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Should we be 1.7 only for trunk / 1.0?
>>>> This would mean using the 1.7 features.
>>>
>>> I think this is prudent. Hadoop common is having a similar discussion and
>>> I think converging on consensus that they would be ok with their trunk
>>> including features only available in 7.
>>>
>>>
>>>> What about .98?
>>>
>>> I don't think this is an option, because although no user should be
>>> running with a 7 runtime (and in fact performance conscious users should be
>>> looking hard at 8), vendors will still have to support customers on 6.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> - Andy
>>>
>>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
>>> (via Tom White)
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>>
>> - Andy
>>
>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
>> (via Tom White)
Re: jdk 1.7 & trunk
Posted by Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>.
Back in time of JDK6 GA - when I was still working in Sun's JDK team - we had
companies sitting on 1.4 and paying _a lot_ of money for Sun support of it.
So...
That said, I think moving to JDK7 is pretty much has happened already for
HBase, because e.g. 0.98.2 can not be build with JDK6 because we see
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-8479
in Bigtop CI.
Cos
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:29AM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
> Er, I mean no user should be running on a runtime less than 7, they are all
> EOL...
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Nicolas Liochon <nk...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Should we be 1.7 only for trunk / 1.0?
> >> This would mean using the 1.7 features.
> >>
> >
> > I think this is prudent. Hadoop common is having a similar discussion and
> > I think converging on consensus that they would be ok with their trunk
> > including features only available in 7.
> >
> >
> >> What about .98?
> >>
> >
> > I don't think this is an option, because although no user should be
> > running with a 7 runtime (and in fact performance conscious users should be
> > looking hard at 8), vendors will still have to support customers on 6.
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> >
> > - Andy
> >
> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> > (via Tom White)
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
> - Andy
>
> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> (via Tom White)
Re: jdk 1.7 & trunk
Posted by Andrew Purtell <an...@gmail.com>.
There are some concurrency library classes in 7 not in 6. Came up recently on HBASE-11297
> On Jun 25, 2014, at 12:13 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Nicolas Liochon <nk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Ok Enis I like the definition you put in the thread.
>>
>> Dropping support explicitly means that we stop building against
>> JDK6 in jenkins, and won't try to fix issues if they are jdk6 only. Release
>> testing and unit tests are done on jdk7.
> This is good by me.
>
>
>
>> And it implies; we may start to use 1.7 specific features.
> Are there explicitly 1.7 features we want to make use of? Looking at this
> list, we might be able to do without:
> http://marxsoftware.blogspot.com/2011/03/jdk-7-new-interfaces-classes-enums-and.html
> Unless distinct advantage to be had, suggest we avoid breaking our being
> able to run on 1.6. 1.0 hbase will be out in a world that is hadoop
> 2.3.x-2.5.x These do not preclude running on 1.6.
>
>
>
>> With this definition:
>> 1) Do we drop support for JDK6 in .98
>
> No. Not over a point release I'd say.
>
>
>
>> 2) Do we drop support for JDK6 in 1.0
> Thinking on it, I'd say yes. 1.6 is EOL. 1.7 makes you faster. Caveat
> suggestion above that we try and avoid gratuitously breaking 1.6.
>
>
>> Does anyone think we need to discuss this or can we start a vote on this?
>> If there is no objection I will start the vote thread in an hour or two.
>
> We can vote. Could also just decide.
>
> St.Ack
Re: jdk 1.7 & trunk
Posted by Enis Söztutar <en...@gmail.com>.
Thanks Stack for updating doc.
Enis
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
> I noted the decision in the refguide in the supported JDKs table that was
> recently added by Misty (I can amend if further discussion on this thread).
>
> St.Ack
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Nicolas Liochon <nk...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Anyone has anything to add?
> >
> > If no we're done with the decision I think:
> > - master / 0.99 / 1.0 becomes JDK7 only
> > - 0.98 continue to support the JDK6 and JDK7.
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Nicolas
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 5:51 PM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > bq. -1 on dropping JDK6 support for anything earlier
> > >
> > > I am with J-D and Lars
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 8:06 AM, lars hofhansl <la...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1 on moving to JDK7 only for 1.0+
> > > > -1 on dropping JDK6 support for anything earlier (i.e. 0.98, 0.96,
> > 0.94).
> > > >
> > > > If there are issues with JDK6 in 0.98 already that would be a major
> bug
> > > > that we need to fix, IMHO.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -- Lars
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Enis Söztutar <en...@apache.org>
> > > > To: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <de...@hbase.apache.org>
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 12:53 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: jdk 1.7 & trunk
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > My vote will be
> > > >
> > > > 1) Not drop support in JDK6 in 0.98.x series as per above.
> > > >
> > > > 2) Drop support to JDK6 in 1.x series.
> > > >
> > > > Also see recent jira:
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-11102
> > > >
> > > > Enis
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Nicolas Liochon <
> nkeywal@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Ok Enis I like the definition you put in the thread.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dropping support explicitly means that we stop building against
> > > > > > JDK6 in jenkins, and won't try to fix issues if they are jdk6
> only.
> > > > > Release
> > > > > > testing and unit tests are done on jdk7.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > This is good by me.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > And it implies; we may start to use 1.7 specific features.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > Are there explicitly 1.7 features we want to make use of? Looking
> at
> > > > this
> > > > > list, we might be able to do without:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://marxsoftware.blogspot.com/2011/03/jdk-7-new-interfaces-classes-enums-and.html
> > > > > Unless distinct advantage to be had, suggest we avoid breaking our
> > > being
> > > > > able to run on 1.6. 1.0 hbase will be out in a world that is hadoop
> > > > > 2.3.x-2.5.x These do not preclude running on 1.6.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > With this definition:
> > > > > > 1) Do we drop support for JDK6 in .98
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > No. Not over a point release I'd say.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > 2) Do we drop support for JDK6 in 1.0
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > Thinking on it, I'd say yes. 1.6 is EOL. 1.7 makes you faster.
> > > Caveat
> > > > > suggestion above that we try and avoid gratuitously breaking 1.6.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Does anyone think we need to discuss this or can we start a vote
> on
> > > > this?
> > > > > > If there is no objection I will start the vote thread in an hour
> or
> > > > two.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > We can vote. Could also just decide.
> > > > >
> > > > > St.Ack
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: jdk 1.7 & trunk
Posted by Stack <st...@duboce.net>.
I noted the decision in the refguide in the supported JDKs table that was
recently added by Misty (I can amend if further discussion on this thread).
St.Ack
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Nicolas Liochon <nk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Anyone has anything to add?
>
> If no we're done with the decision I think:
> - master / 0.99 / 1.0 becomes JDK7 only
> - 0.98 continue to support the JDK6 and JDK7.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Nicolas
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 5:51 PM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > bq. -1 on dropping JDK6 support for anything earlier
> >
> > I am with J-D and Lars
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 8:06 AM, lars hofhansl <la...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > +1 on moving to JDK7 only for 1.0+
> > > -1 on dropping JDK6 support for anything earlier (i.e. 0.98, 0.96,
> 0.94).
> > >
> > > If there are issues with JDK6 in 0.98 already that would be a major bug
> > > that we need to fix, IMHO.
> > >
> > >
> > > -- Lars
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Enis Söztutar <en...@apache.org>
> > > To: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <de...@hbase.apache.org>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 12:53 PM
> > > Subject: Re: jdk 1.7 & trunk
> > >
> > >
> > > My vote will be
> > >
> > > 1) Not drop support in JDK6 in 0.98.x series as per above.
> > >
> > > 2) Drop support to JDK6 in 1.x series.
> > >
> > > Also see recent jira:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-11102
> > >
> > > Enis
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Nicolas Liochon <nkeywal@gmail.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Ok Enis I like the definition you put in the thread.
> > > > >
> > > > > Dropping support explicitly means that we stop building against
> > > > > JDK6 in jenkins, and won't try to fix issues if they are jdk6 only.
> > > > Release
> > > > > testing and unit tests are done on jdk7.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > This is good by me.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > And it implies; we may start to use 1.7 specific features.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > Are there explicitly 1.7 features we want to make use of? Looking at
> > > this
> > > > list, we might be able to do without:
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://marxsoftware.blogspot.com/2011/03/jdk-7-new-interfaces-classes-enums-and.html
> > > > Unless distinct advantage to be had, suggest we avoid breaking our
> > being
> > > > able to run on 1.6. 1.0 hbase will be out in a world that is hadoop
> > > > 2.3.x-2.5.x These do not preclude running on 1.6.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > With this definition:
> > > > > 1) Do we drop support for JDK6 in .98
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > No. Not over a point release I'd say.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > 2) Do we drop support for JDK6 in 1.0
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > Thinking on it, I'd say yes. 1.6 is EOL. 1.7 makes you faster.
> > Caveat
> > > > suggestion above that we try and avoid gratuitously breaking 1.6.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Does anyone think we need to discuss this or can we start a vote on
> > > this?
> > > > > If there is no objection I will start the vote thread in an hour or
> > > two.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > We can vote. Could also just decide.
> > > >
> > > > St.Ack
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: jdk 1.7 & trunk
Posted by Nicolas Liochon <nk...@gmail.com>.
Anyone has anything to add?
If no we're done with the decision I think:
- master / 0.99 / 1.0 becomes JDK7 only
- 0.98 continue to support the JDK6 and JDK7.
Cheers,
Nicolas
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 5:51 PM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> bq. -1 on dropping JDK6 support for anything earlier
>
> I am with J-D and Lars
>
> Cheers
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 8:06 AM, lars hofhansl <la...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > +1 on moving to JDK7 only for 1.0+
> > -1 on dropping JDK6 support for anything earlier (i.e. 0.98, 0.96, 0.94).
> >
> > If there are issues with JDK6 in 0.98 already that would be a major bug
> > that we need to fix, IMHO.
> >
> >
> > -- Lars
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Enis Söztutar <en...@apache.org>
> > To: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <de...@hbase.apache.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 12:53 PM
> > Subject: Re: jdk 1.7 & trunk
> >
> >
> > My vote will be
> >
> > 1) Not drop support in JDK6 in 0.98.x series as per above.
> >
> > 2) Drop support to JDK6 in 1.x series.
> >
> > Also see recent jira: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-11102
> >
> > Enis
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Nicolas Liochon <nk...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ok Enis I like the definition you put in the thread.
> > > >
> > > > Dropping support explicitly means that we stop building against
> > > > JDK6 in jenkins, and won't try to fix issues if they are jdk6 only.
> > > Release
> > > > testing and unit tests are done on jdk7.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > This is good by me.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > And it implies; we may start to use 1.7 specific features.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Are there explicitly 1.7 features we want to make use of? Looking at
> > this
> > > list, we might be able to do without:
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://marxsoftware.blogspot.com/2011/03/jdk-7-new-interfaces-classes-enums-and.html
> > > Unless distinct advantage to be had, suggest we avoid breaking our
> being
> > > able to run on 1.6. 1.0 hbase will be out in a world that is hadoop
> > > 2.3.x-2.5.x These do not preclude running on 1.6.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > With this definition:
> > > > 1) Do we drop support for JDK6 in .98
> > > >
> > >
> > > No. Not over a point release I'd say.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > 2) Do we drop support for JDK6 in 1.0
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Thinking on it, I'd say yes. 1.6 is EOL. 1.7 makes you faster.
> Caveat
> > > suggestion above that we try and avoid gratuitously breaking 1.6.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Does anyone think we need to discuss this or can we start a vote on
> > this?
> > > > If there is no objection I will start the vote thread in an hour or
> > two.
> > > >
> > >
> > > We can vote. Could also just decide.
> > >
> > > St.Ack
> > >
> >
>
Re: jdk 1.7 & trunk
Posted by Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com>.
bq. -1 on dropping JDK6 support for anything earlier
I am with J-D and Lars
Cheers
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 8:06 AM, lars hofhansl <la...@apache.org> wrote:
> +1 on moving to JDK7 only for 1.0+
> -1 on dropping JDK6 support for anything earlier (i.e. 0.98, 0.96, 0.94).
>
> If there are issues with JDK6 in 0.98 already that would be a major bug
> that we need to fix, IMHO.
>
>
> -- Lars
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Enis Söztutar <en...@apache.org>
> To: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <de...@hbase.apache.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 12:53 PM
> Subject: Re: jdk 1.7 & trunk
>
>
> My vote will be
>
> 1) Not drop support in JDK6 in 0.98.x series as per above.
>
> 2) Drop support to JDK6 in 1.x series.
>
> Also see recent jira: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-11102
>
> Enis
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Nicolas Liochon <nk...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Ok Enis I like the definition you put in the thread.
> > >
> > > Dropping support explicitly means that we stop building against
> > > JDK6 in jenkins, and won't try to fix issues if they are jdk6 only.
> > Release
> > > testing and unit tests are done on jdk7.
> > >
> > >
> > This is good by me.
> >
> >
> >
> > > And it implies; we may start to use 1.7 specific features.
> > >
> > >
> > Are there explicitly 1.7 features we want to make use of? Looking at
> this
> > list, we might be able to do without:
> >
> >
> http://marxsoftware.blogspot.com/2011/03/jdk-7-new-interfaces-classes-enums-and.html
> > Unless distinct advantage to be had, suggest we avoid breaking our being
> > able to run on 1.6. 1.0 hbase will be out in a world that is hadoop
> > 2.3.x-2.5.x These do not preclude running on 1.6.
> >
> >
> >
> > > With this definition:
> > > 1) Do we drop support for JDK6 in .98
> > >
> >
> > No. Not over a point release I'd say.
> >
> >
> >
> > > 2) Do we drop support for JDK6 in 1.0
> > >
> > >
> > Thinking on it, I'd say yes. 1.6 is EOL. 1.7 makes you faster. Caveat
> > suggestion above that we try and avoid gratuitously breaking 1.6.
> >
> >
> > > Does anyone think we need to discuss this or can we start a vote on
> this?
> > > If there is no objection I will start the vote thread in an hour or
> two.
> > >
> >
> > We can vote. Could also just decide.
> >
> > St.Ack
> >
>
Re: jdk 1.7 & trunk
Posted by lars hofhansl <la...@apache.org>.
+1 on moving to JDK7 only for 1.0+
-1 on dropping JDK6 support for anything earlier (i.e. 0.98, 0.96, 0.94).
If there are issues with JDK6 in 0.98 already that would be a major bug that we need to fix, IMHO.
-- Lars
________________________________
From: Enis Söztutar <en...@apache.org>
To: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <de...@hbase.apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 12:53 PM
Subject: Re: jdk 1.7 & trunk
My vote will be
1) Not drop support in JDK6 in 0.98.x series as per above.
2) Drop support to JDK6 in 1.x series.
Also see recent jira: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-11102
Enis
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Nicolas Liochon <nk...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Ok Enis I like the definition you put in the thread.
> >
> > Dropping support explicitly means that we stop building against
> > JDK6 in jenkins, and won't try to fix issues if they are jdk6 only.
> Release
> > testing and unit tests are done on jdk7.
> >
> >
> This is good by me.
>
>
>
> > And it implies; we may start to use 1.7 specific features.
> >
> >
> Are there explicitly 1.7 features we want to make use of? Looking at this
> list, we might be able to do without:
>
> http://marxsoftware.blogspot.com/2011/03/jdk-7-new-interfaces-classes-enums-and.html
> Unless distinct advantage to be had, suggest we avoid breaking our being
> able to run on 1.6. 1.0 hbase will be out in a world that is hadoop
> 2.3.x-2.5.x These do not preclude running on 1.6.
>
>
>
> > With this definition:
> > 1) Do we drop support for JDK6 in .98
> >
>
> No. Not over a point release I'd say.
>
>
>
> > 2) Do we drop support for JDK6 in 1.0
> >
> >
> Thinking on it, I'd say yes. 1.6 is EOL. 1.7 makes you faster. Caveat
> suggestion above that we try and avoid gratuitously breaking 1.6.
>
>
> > Does anyone think we need to discuss this or can we start a vote on this?
> > If there is no objection I will start the vote thread in an hour or two.
> >
>
> We can vote. Could also just decide.
>
> St.Ack
>
Re: jdk 1.7 & trunk
Posted by Enis Söztutar <en...@apache.org>.
My vote will be
1) Not drop support in JDK6 in 0.98.x series as per above.
2) Drop support to JDK6 in 1.x series.
Also see recent jira: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-11102
Enis
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Nicolas Liochon <nk...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Ok Enis I like the definition you put in the thread.
> >
> > Dropping support explicitly means that we stop building against
> > JDK6 in jenkins, and won't try to fix issues if they are jdk6 only.
> Release
> > testing and unit tests are done on jdk7.
> >
> >
> This is good by me.
>
>
>
> > And it implies; we may start to use 1.7 specific features.
> >
> >
> Are there explicitly 1.7 features we want to make use of? Looking at this
> list, we might be able to do without:
>
> http://marxsoftware.blogspot.com/2011/03/jdk-7-new-interfaces-classes-enums-and.html
> Unless distinct advantage to be had, suggest we avoid breaking our being
> able to run on 1.6. 1.0 hbase will be out in a world that is hadoop
> 2.3.x-2.5.x These do not preclude running on 1.6.
>
>
>
> > With this definition:
> > 1) Do we drop support for JDK6 in .98
> >
>
> No. Not over a point release I'd say.
>
>
>
> > 2) Do we drop support for JDK6 in 1.0
> >
> >
> Thinking on it, I'd say yes. 1.6 is EOL. 1.7 makes you faster. Caveat
> suggestion above that we try and avoid gratuitously breaking 1.6.
>
>
> > Does anyone think we need to discuss this or can we start a vote on this?
> > If there is no objection I will start the vote thread in an hour or two.
> >
>
> We can vote. Could also just decide.
>
> St.Ack
>
Re: jdk 1.7 & trunk
Posted by Stack <st...@duboce.net>.
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Nicolas Liochon <nk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ok Enis I like the definition you put in the thread.
>
> Dropping support explicitly means that we stop building against
> JDK6 in jenkins, and won't try to fix issues if they are jdk6 only. Release
> testing and unit tests are done on jdk7.
>
>
This is good by me.
> And it implies; we may start to use 1.7 specific features.
>
>
Are there explicitly 1.7 features we want to make use of? Looking at this
list, we might be able to do without:
http://marxsoftware.blogspot.com/2011/03/jdk-7-new-interfaces-classes-enums-and.html
Unless distinct advantage to be had, suggest we avoid breaking our being
able to run on 1.6. 1.0 hbase will be out in a world that is hadoop
2.3.x-2.5.x These do not preclude running on 1.6.
> With this definition:
> 1) Do we drop support for JDK6 in .98
>
No. Not over a point release I'd say.
> 2) Do we drop support for JDK6 in 1.0
>
>
Thinking on it, I'd say yes. 1.6 is EOL. 1.7 makes you faster. Caveat
suggestion above that we try and avoid gratuitously breaking 1.6.
> Does anyone think we need to discuss this or can we start a vote on this?
> If there is no objection I will start the vote thread in an hour or two.
>
We can vote. Could also just decide.
St.Ack
Re: jdk 1.7 & trunk
Posted by Nicolas Liochon <nk...@gmail.com>.
> it would mean that you'd need to upgrade Java in order to get HBase bug
fixes :)
Yes if you're using hbase 0.98 with the JDK 1.6 in production.
If that's the case yes we should not drop the support.
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 8:54 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <jd...@apache.org>
wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Nicolas Liochon <nk...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Ok Enis I like the definition you put in the thread.
> >
> > Dropping support explicitly means that we stop building against
> > JDK6 in jenkins, and won't try to fix issues if they are jdk6 only.
> Release
> > testing and unit tests are done on jdk7.
> >
> > And it implies; we may start to use 1.7 specific features.
> >
> > With this definition:
> > 1) Do we drop support for JDK6 in .98
> >
>
> That's an easy -1, it would mean that you'd need to upgrade Java in order
> to get HBase bug fixes :)
>
>
> > 2) Do we drop support for JDK6 in 1.0
> >
> > Does anyone think we need to discuss this or can we start a vote on this?
> > If there is no objection I will start the vote thread in an hour or two.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > N.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 8:14 PM, Enis Söztutar <en...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > See the thread:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hbase-dev/201404.mbox/%3CCAMUu0w_KgwTLWkTc3W85H4yYuDSaEn=Ncf7ziRhhMZ=HFOdyXw@mail.gmail.com%3E
> > >
> > > There was no conclusion in that thread. But it should be ok to start a
> > VOTE
> > > I guess.
> > >
> > > Enis
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Er, I mean no user should be running on a runtime less than 7, they
> are
> > > all
> > > > EOL...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Andrew Purtell <
> apurtell@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Nicolas Liochon <
> nkeywal@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Should we be 1.7 only for trunk / 1.0?
> > > > >> This would mean using the 1.7 features.
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > > I think this is prudent. Hadoop common is having a similar
> discussion
> > > and
> > > > > I think converging on consensus that they would be ok with their
> > trunk
> > > > > including features only available in 7.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >> What about .98?
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't think this is an option, because although no user should
> be
> > > > > running with a 7 runtime (and in fact performance conscious users
> > > should
> > > > be
> > > > > looking hard at 8), vendors will still have to support customers on
> > 6.
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > - Andy
> > > > >
> > > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> > > Hein
> > > > > (via Tom White)
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best regards,
> > > >
> > > > - Andy
> > > >
> > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> > Hein
> > > > (via Tom White)
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: jdk 1.7 & trunk
Posted by Jean-Daniel Cryans <jd...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Nicolas Liochon <nk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ok Enis I like the definition you put in the thread.
>
> Dropping support explicitly means that we stop building against
> JDK6 in jenkins, and won't try to fix issues if they are jdk6 only. Release
> testing and unit tests are done on jdk7.
>
> And it implies; we may start to use 1.7 specific features.
>
> With this definition:
> 1) Do we drop support for JDK6 in .98
>
That's an easy -1, it would mean that you'd need to upgrade Java in order
to get HBase bug fixes :)
> 2) Do we drop support for JDK6 in 1.0
>
> Does anyone think we need to discuss this or can we start a vote on this?
> If there is no objection I will start the vote thread in an hour or two.
>
> Cheers,
>
> N.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 8:14 PM, Enis Söztutar <en...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > See the thread:
> >
> >
> >
> https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hbase-dev/201404.mbox/%3CCAMUu0w_KgwTLWkTc3W85H4yYuDSaEn=Ncf7ziRhhMZ=HFOdyXw@mail.gmail.com%3E
> >
> > There was no conclusion in that thread. But it should be ok to start a
> VOTE
> > I guess.
> >
> > Enis
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Er, I mean no user should be running on a runtime less than 7, they are
> > all
> > > EOL...
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Nicolas Liochon <nk...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Should we be 1.7 only for trunk / 1.0?
> > > >> This would mean using the 1.7 features.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > I think this is prudent. Hadoop common is having a similar discussion
> > and
> > > > I think converging on consensus that they would be ok with their
> trunk
> > > > including features only available in 7.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> What about .98?
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > I don't think this is an option, because although no user should be
> > > > running with a 7 runtime (and in fact performance conscious users
> > should
> > > be
> > > > looking hard at 8), vendors will still have to support customers on
> 6.
> >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best regards,
> > > >
> > > > - Andy
> > > >
> > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> > Hein
> > > > (via Tom White)
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > > - Andy
> > >
> > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> Hein
> > > (via Tom White)
> > >
> >
>
Re: jdk 1.7 & trunk
Posted by Nicolas Liochon <nk...@gmail.com>.
Ok Enis I like the definition you put in the thread.
Dropping support explicitly means that we stop building against
JDK6 in jenkins, and won't try to fix issues if they are jdk6 only. Release
testing and unit tests are done on jdk7.
And it implies; we may start to use 1.7 specific features.
With this definition:
1) Do we drop support for JDK6 in .98
2) Do we drop support for JDK6 in 1.0
Does anyone think we need to discuss this or can we start a vote on this?
If there is no objection I will start the vote thread in an hour or two.
Cheers,
N.
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 8:14 PM, Enis Söztutar <en...@gmail.com> wrote:
> See the thread:
>
>
> https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hbase-dev/201404.mbox/%3CCAMUu0w_KgwTLWkTc3W85H4yYuDSaEn=Ncf7ziRhhMZ=HFOdyXw@mail.gmail.com%3E
>
> There was no conclusion in that thread. But it should be ok to start a VOTE
> I guess.
>
> Enis
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Er, I mean no user should be running on a runtime less than 7, they are
> all
> > EOL...
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Nicolas Liochon <nk...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Should we be 1.7 only for trunk / 1.0?
> > >> This would mean using the 1.7 features.
> > >>
> > >
> > > I think this is prudent. Hadoop common is having a similar discussion
> and
> > > I think converging on consensus that they would be ok with their trunk
> > > including features only available in 7.
> > >
> > >
> > >> What about .98?
> > >>
> > >
> > > I don't think this is an option, because although no user should be
> > > running with a 7 runtime (and in fact performance conscious users
> should
> > be
> > > looking hard at 8), vendors will still have to support customers on 6.
>
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > > - Andy
> > >
> > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> Hein
> > > (via Tom White)
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> >
> > - Andy
> >
> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> > (via Tom White)
> >
>
Re: jdk 1.7 & trunk
Posted by Enis Söztutar <en...@gmail.com>.
See the thread:
https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hbase-dev/201404.mbox/%3CCAMUu0w_KgwTLWkTc3W85H4yYuDSaEn=Ncf7ziRhhMZ=HFOdyXw@mail.gmail.com%3E
There was no conclusion in that thread. But it should be ok to start a VOTE
I guess.
Enis
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Er, I mean no user should be running on a runtime less than 7, they are all
> EOL...
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Nicolas Liochon <nk...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Should we be 1.7 only for trunk / 1.0?
> >> This would mean using the 1.7 features.
> >>
> >
> > I think this is prudent. Hadoop common is having a similar discussion and
> > I think converging on consensus that they would be ok with their trunk
> > including features only available in 7.
> >
> >
> >> What about .98?
> >>
> >
> > I don't think this is an option, because although no user should be
> > running with a 7 runtime (and in fact performance conscious users should
> be
> > looking hard at 8), vendors will still have to support customers on 6.
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> >
> > - Andy
> >
> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> > (via Tom White)
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
> - Andy
>
> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> (via Tom White)
>
Re: jdk 1.7 & trunk
Posted by Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>.
Er, I mean no user should be running on a runtime less than 7, they are all
EOL...
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Nicolas Liochon <nk...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Should we be 1.7 only for trunk / 1.0?
>> This would mean using the 1.7 features.
>>
>
> I think this is prudent. Hadoop common is having a similar discussion and
> I think converging on consensus that they would be ok with their trunk
> including features only available in 7.
>
>
>> What about .98?
>>
>
> I don't think this is an option, because although no user should be
> running with a 7 runtime (and in fact performance conscious users should be
> looking hard at 8), vendors will still have to support customers on 6.
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
> - Andy
>
> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> (via Tom White)
>
--
Best regards,
- Andy
Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)
Re: jdk 1.7 & trunk
Posted by Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Nicolas Liochon <nk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Should we be 1.7 only for trunk / 1.0?
> This would mean using the 1.7 features.
>
I think this is prudent. Hadoop common is having a similar discussion and I
think converging on consensus that they would be ok with their trunk
including features only available in 7.
> What about .98?
>
I don't think this is an option, because although no user should be
running with a 7 runtime (and in fact performance conscious users should be
looking hard at 8), vendors will still have to support customers on 6.
--
Best regards,
- Andy
Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)