You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@netbeans.apache.org by Neil C Smith <ne...@apache.org> on 2023/03/24 19:10:16 UTC
Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition)
On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 at 08:51, Michael Bien <mb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> With every new JDK release it will become more difficult to keep
> supporting JDK 8 as runtime. It also becomes increasingly difficult to
> motivate myself to fix JDK 8 issues in my freetime. If I see PRs which
> fix edge cases in java-version parsing code which could be already
> solved by simply using the JDK 11 API for it, I am just asking myself:
> why are we doing this? It is not one thing which is the problem, its a
> million paper cuts.
This thread has somewhat split into conversations elsewhere. But if
we're going to save ourselves from the million paper cuts by nailing
the coffin lid shut :-) we should probably move to vote on this soon.
We're about to hit the branch point for NB18 in a few weeks. I swear
this comes around quicker each time! If we're going to drop all
support for running on JDK 8 in NetBeans 19, then it would be good to
make that decision before NB18 branch and start of NB19 development.
I'd be very happy if anyone else wants to propose a vote(!), but if
nothing starts before week of April 3 I intend to initiate one so we
can get a decision in time. I'd also prefer we did this via lazy
consensus as we've done previously, but I get the feeling that won't
work!
Personally I'd also like us to link the decision on future JDK support
to this too, so we could be clear to ourselves, platform developers,
and users for how long we intend to commit to supporting particular
JDKs. Various people, including me, have proposed an LTS-1 strategy.
But the implication of that is only committing to supporting build and
run of the IDE and platform on JDK 11 until the middle of 2024. Are
the people not in favour of that in favour of an LTS-2 strategy, or
something else entirely? What are the implications for us of that,
etc.? I know Svata commented elsewhere about following up on this
point - be good to understand the concerns and/or consider how to
address within the capacity we have.
We could of course separate the two things, if we really need to, but
I'm not sure kicking the can further down the road is a good idea.
Best wishes,
Neil
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@netbeans.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@netbeans.apache.org
For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition)
Posted by Neil C Smith <ne...@apache.org>.
On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 at 23:54, rangi.keen@siemens.com
<ra...@siemens.com> wrote:
> I am in favor of an LTS-1 policy. It allows us to adopt (somewhat) recent additions to the language while still supporting some older environments. Given that with the new release roadmap we will see a new LTS release every two years, an LTS-2 policy may make more sense while still allowing use of relatively recent language features. This would mean moving to Java 11 for NB 20 after the release of Java 21 in September.
Thanks Rangi for your input. The LTS-1 proposal I made above is
slightly different in that we would change the supported baseline with
the release of NB 22 rather than NB 20. As we're always aiming to
support the current JDK, it's actually with the release of Java 22
that we end up with a new LTS to add to the support matrix.
So, LTS-1 would always be officially supporting three JDKs concurrently -
NB 20 & 21 - JDK 11, 17 and 21
NB 22 - JDK 17, 21 and 22
An LTS-2 strategy might be to keep JDK 11 as the runtime minimum until
NB 30 in 2026, always supporting four JDKs concurrently. That might
be a capacity issue (people and CI)? Personally, I think we'd have to
then run a different policy for min build JDK than min runtime JDK
too.
It would be good in any way to align the platform with the IDE, which
has required JDK 11 for over a year now.
As mentioned earlier, I'm planning a lazy consensus and/or vote thread
on this from Monday. Have written up a fuller version of the above as
a draft, which might be amended if anyone has further comments that
can be addressed. The lazy consensus stage will also be a chance to
amend.
Best wishes,
Neil
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@netbeans.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@netbeans.apache.org
For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition)
Posted by "rangi.keen@siemens.com" <ra...@siemens.com>.
I am in favor of an LTS-1 policy. It allows us to adopt (somewhat) recent additions to the language while still supporting some older environments. Given that with the new release roadmap <https://www.oracle.com/java/technologies/java-se-support-roadmap.html> we will see a new LTS release every two years, an LTS-2 policy may make more sense while still allowing use of relatively recent language features. This would mean moving to Java 11 for NB 20 after the release of Java 21 in September.
Rangi
> On Mar 24, 2023, at 3:10 PM, Neil C Smith <ne...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 at 08:51, Michael Bien <mb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> With every new JDK release it will become more difficult to keep
>> supporting JDK 8 as runtime. It also becomes increasingly difficult to
>> motivate myself to fix JDK 8 issues in my freetime. If I see PRs which
>> fix edge cases in java-version parsing code which could be already
>> solved by simply using the JDK 11 API for it, I am just asking myself:
>> why are we doing this? It is not one thing which is the problem, its a
>> million paper cuts.
>
> This thread has somewhat split into conversations elsewhere. But if
> we're going to save ourselves from the million paper cuts by nailing
> the coffin lid shut :-) we should probably move to vote on this soon.
>
> We're about to hit the branch point for NB18 in a few weeks. I swear
> this comes around quicker each time! If we're going to drop all
> support for running on JDK 8 in NetBeans 19, then it would be good to
> make that decision before NB18 branch and start of NB19 development.
> I'd be very happy if anyone else wants to propose a vote(!), but if
> nothing starts before week of April 3 I intend to initiate one so we
> can get a decision in time. I'd also prefer we did this via lazy
> consensus as we've done previously, but I get the feeling that won't
> work!
>
> Personally I'd also like us to link the decision on future JDK support
> to this too, so we could be clear to ourselves, platform developers,
> and users for how long we intend to commit to supporting particular
> JDKs. Various people, including me, have proposed an LTS-1 strategy.
> But the implication of that is only committing to supporting build and
> run of the IDE and platform on JDK 11 until the middle of 2024. Are
> the people not in favour of that in favour of an LTS-2 strategy, or
> something else entirely? What are the implications for us of that,
> etc.? I know Svata commented elsewhere about following up on this
> point - be good to understand the concerns and/or consider how to
> address within the capacity we have.
>
> We could of course separate the two things, if we really need to, but
> I'm not sure kicking the can further down the road is a good idea.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Neil
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@netbeans.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@netbeans.apache.org
>
> For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcwiki.apache.org%2Fconfluence%2Fdisplay%2FNETBEANS%2FMailing%2Blists&data=05%7C01%7Crangi.keen%40siemens.com%7Cd7fb02c589424947056408db2c9ba388%7C38ae3bcd95794fd4addab42e1495d55a%7C1%7C0%7C638152819202129031%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=oxsbg4e0O7XutYjPCEklAb7s%2FHThQ1QjREiOq5eOHF0%3D&reserved=0
>
>
>