Re: [Numbers] Java version?

[Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org>]

On Mon, 1 May 2017 09:08:23 +1000, Peter Ansell wrote:
> Jenkins now requires Java-8 as its base runtime environment on the
> regular release channel, with its LTS channel moving to Java-8 in a
> few weeks:
>
> https://jenkins.io/blog/2017/04/10/jenkins-has-upgraded-to-java-8/

Thanks for the notice.

As Sebb aptly reminded, this is however independent of why we might
want a component to upgrade its Java version, but ...

> That one bit me, as there is a bug updating on older Ubuntu versions
> that don't carry a Java-8 JDK in their standard repositories so you
> need to pull in the webupd8 PPA or the openjdk PPA:
>
> https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/browse/JENKINS-43629
>
> The statistics that backed the Jenkins decision were interesting, but
> not necessarily relevant to other production applications:
>
> https://jenkins.io/blog/2017/01/17/Jenkins-is-upgrading-to-Java-8/

... this link is yet another rephrase of why a community-driven
project might want to keep up with its environment:
   "Being also a developer community, we want Jenkins to be
    appealing to contributors."


Regards,
Gilles

>
> Cheers,
>
> Peter
>
> On 1 May 2017 at 02:22, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Supporting Java 6 is going to continue to become harder and harder 
>> to do
>> with infrastructural upgrades across the board. Recent versions of 
>> Gradle
>> require Java 7 to run, for example, just like Jenkins, even though 
>> you can
>> still use those to compile for Java 6. Ant has finally moved on from 
>> the
>> Java 5 baseline, though IIRC, they jumped straight to Java 8. 
>> Considering
>> how long it was between Maven 3.3.9 and 3.5.0, I'm guessing the 
>> discussion
>> there about the baseline Java version is still ongoing.
>>
>> Really, what this is all pointing toward is that the greater Java 
>> developer
>> community is moving on from Java 6, and if we want to continue 
>> supporting
>> Java 6 in projects that otherwise shouldn't need anything newer, we 
>> may
>> need some better tooling or documented standards on how to continue 
>> doing
>> so. If Java 6 just never dies, then I almost think that we'll need 
>> to take
>> a leaf from the Javascript developer community and get some sort of
>> transpiler to support Java 6 using newer syntax and libraries (which 
>> could
>> be compile-time re-linked to compatibility libraries).
>>
>> On 30 April 2017 at 09:55, Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org> 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 15:39:20 +0100, sebb wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 30 April 2017 at 15:32, Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org> 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 14:49:56 +0100, sebb wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 29 April 2017 at 19:10, Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org> 
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, 29 Apr 2017 09:46:56 -0400, Raymond DeCampo wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please note I wrote an issue concerning this last week or so.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NUMBERS-21
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I noticed when moving code from [math] to [numbers] that 
>>>>>>>> [math]
>>>>>>>> targets
>>>>>>>> 7.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As a general rule, this must formally asked on the "dev" ML.
>>>>>>> [And, we'll take for granted that if no one raises an objection
>>>>>>> within 72 hours, the proposal is accepted.]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I had to make some minor downgrades in the code (use of diamond
>>>>>>>> operator).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Given that [math] targets Java 7 and [numbers] is based on it, 
>>>>>>>> I see
>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>> reason [numbers] shouldn't target 7 as well.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's fine with me; however let's note (for the record) that 
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> last official release of CM (3.6.1) was still Java 5 (five) 
>>>>>>> compatible.
>>>>>>> I don't think (TBC) that any of the CM codes intended (as of 
>>>>>>> now) for
>>>>>>> inclusion _requires_ Java 7.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hence my question about the necessity (seems not) or 
>>>>>>> willingness
>>>>>>> (could well be, if just for the comfort of contributors) to 
>>>>>>> upgrade.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now, concretely, you could make the "downgrades" and the code 
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> now Java 6 compatible.
>>>>>>> However, as concretely, it is not obvious that we want to loose
>>>>>>> more time fiddling with Jenkins to make it perform the build of
>>>>>>> code targeted to old Java.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IMO it is wrong for Jenkins to dictate the Java compat level of 
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> items it builds.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree.
>>>>>
>>>>> Besides, it is not difficult to do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Then why doesn't INFRA do it when they perform an upgrade that
>>>>> breaks what used to work?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Don't ask me, ask them...
>>>>
>>>
>>> I first asked here because I might have missed an announcement
>>> explaining how to upgrade the config.  [I seem to recall having
>>> done what was required when the issue with Java 6 was first
>>> mentioned; then it broke again.]
>>>
>>>
>>>> Help welcome, since I must have missed the "easy" part in my
>>>>> attempts to fix it...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which job is failing?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I've just seen that you fixed it for "RNG". Thanks!
>>> I've reviewed the changes and did the same in "Numbers".
>>> Fixed now!
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Gilles
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Gilles
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Gilles
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 6:30 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> 
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 28 April 2017 at 16:05, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> 
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> > If you're going to build for Java 6 using Java 7, then you 
>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>> > really
>>>>>>>>> > use something like <
>>>>>>>>> > 
>>>>>>>>> http://www.mojohaus.org/animal-sniffer/animal-sniffer-maven-
>>>>>>>>> plugin/>
>>>>>>>>> > to
>>>>>>>>> > prevent accidental usage of Java 7.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And/Or actually use Java 6 to compile/test, which is pretty 
>>>>>>>>> easy to
>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>> using the -Pjava-1.6 profile.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> > On 28 April 2017 at 09:51, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >> On 28 April 2017 at 13:01, Gilles 
>>>>>>>>> <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org>
>>>>>>>>> >> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> >> > Hi.
>>>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>>>> >> > On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 08:42:36 -0700, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>>>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>>>>> >> >> On Apr 27, 2017 8:21 AM, "Gilles" <
>>>>>>>>> gilles@harfang.homelinux.org>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>>>>> >> >> On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 10:10:57 -0500, Matt Sicker wrote:
>>>>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>>>>> >> >>> Choosing Java 8 or 7 for a new component depends on 
>>>>>>>>> the APIs
>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>> want
>>>>>>>>> >> to
>>>>>>>>> >> >>> use for it more so than what's current.
>>>>>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>>>>> >> >> Indeed, the question could be rephrased as: Is there 
>>>>>>>>> anything
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> loose
>>>>>>>>> >> >> (for a new component) if we allow the larger API of 
>>>>>>>>> Java 8?
>>>>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>>>>> >> >> I hear people are still using Java
>>>>>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>>>>>> >> >>> 6, but I doubt those projects are adapting new 
>>>>>>>>> libraries or
>>>>>>>>> upgrading
>>>>>>>>> >> any
>>>>>>>>> >> >>> of their dependencies as it is...
>>>>>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>>>>> >> >> That has seemed logical to me for a long time...
>>>>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>>>>> >> >> +1
>>>>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>>>>> >> >> I say pick the version you think is best.
>>>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>>>> >> > At this point, I can't say exactly.
>>>>>>>>> >> > The current code doesn't seem to need Java APIs beyond 
>>>>>>>>> 6, but
>>>>>>>>> >> > other
>>>>>>>>> >> > utilities yet to be added might benefit.
>>>>>>>>> >> > The only argument for leaving Java 6 is that we have to 
>>>>>>>>> go
>>>>>>>>> through
>>>>>>>>> >> > hoops with the Jenkins configuration.
>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>> >> That is not an argument for upping the Java version
>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>> >> > Currently it fails in a way that looks cryptic to me.
>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>> >> That's because Jenkins now requires Java 7 to run Maven 
>>>>>>>>> jobs,
>>>>>>>>> though
>>>>>>>>> >> it does not seem to need it for all job types.
>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>> >> > So, unless someone can fix it, I'll bump the dependency 
>>>>>>>>> to Java
>>>>>>>>> 7.
>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>> >> Huh?
>>>>>>>>> >> Surely you can just tell Jenkins to use Java 7 to build 
>>>>>>>>> and test?
>>>>>>>>> >> There's no need for the source to be updated as well 
>>>>>>>>> (there might
>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>> >> some Javadoc warnings, I suppose, but those can be fixed 
>>>>>>>>> without
>>>>>>>>> >> compromising Java 6 compat.)
>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>> >> But it's pretty easy to fix so it builds and tests using 
>>>>>>>>> Java 6 -
>>>>>>>>> >> which job is it?
>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>> >> > Regards,
>>>>>>>>> >> > Gilles
>>>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>>>>> >> >> Gary
>>>>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>>>>> >> >> Regards,
>>>>>>>>> >> >> Gilles
>>>>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>>>>> >> >> On 27 April 2017 at 09:41, Gilles <
>>>>>>>>> gilles@harfang.homelinux.org>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>>>>>> >> >>> On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 14:49:01 +0200, Gilles wrote:
>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>
>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>
>>>>>>>>> >> >>>> Hi.
>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>> The POM indicates:
>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>     
>>>>>>>>> <maven.compiler.source>1.6</maven.compiler.source>
>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>     
>>>>>>>>> <maven.compiler.target>1.6</maven.compiler.target>
>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>> but also:
>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>     <commons.release.desc>(requires Java
>>>>>>>>> 7+)</commons.release.desc>
>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>> Which is wrong?
>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>> Also, please not that keeping 1.6 compatibility 
>>>>>>>>> seems to
>>>>>>>>> complicate
>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>
>>>>>>>>> >> >>>> the Jenkins configuration:
>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>   https://builds.apache.org/vie
>>>>>>>>> w/Apache%20Commons/job/Commons_
>>>>>>>>> >> >>>> Numbers/14/console
>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>
>>>>>>>>> >> >>>> For a new component, shouldn't we just go to Java 8?
>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>
>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>
>>>>>>>>> >> >>>> Gilles
>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>
>>>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org