You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@accumulo.apache.org by Christopher <ct...@apache.org> on 2013/06/03 22:51:32 UTC
[VOTE] JDK 1.7 - Switch for Accumulo 1.6.0
Given all the previous discussions about this, and assuming all points
and counterpoints have already been sufficiently enumerated, I'd like
to put it to a vote, explicitly:
Should we switch to JDK 1.7 for Accumulo 1.6.0, to take advantage of
newer features (ACCUMULO-905), or should we continue to require that
Accumulo 1.6.0 run on JRE 1.6?
--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
Re: [VOTE] JDK 1.7 - Switch for Accumulo 1.6.0
Posted by Christopher <ct...@apache.org>.
I forgot to mention this, but this vote will be held open for 72
hours. Since I forgot to mention this right away, consider the clock
starting now.
I'll consider the vote as having passed with a majority of voters
approving (vs. unanimous), since I don't think negative votes will be
reconcilable through further discussion, and because I want this
question resolved as quickly as possible at the beginning of the
development cycle, rather than half-way through.
--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
> Given all the previous discussions about this, and assuming all points
> and counterpoints have already been sufficiently enumerated, I'd like
> to put it to a vote, explicitly:
>
> Should we switch to JDK 1.7 for Accumulo 1.6.0, to take advantage of
> newer features (ACCUMULO-905), or should we continue to require that
> Accumulo 1.6.0 run on JRE 1.6?
>
> --
> Christopher L Tubbs II
> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
Re: [VOTE] JDK 1.7 - Switch for Accumulo 1.6.0
Posted by Christopher <ct...@apache.org>.
Adam, the question isn't whether we should stop supporting users on
Java 1.6. The question is whether they'd be enticed by 1.6.0 features
enough to be willing to install its prerequisites. Accumulo 1.5.0 will
continue to run on 1.6 JVMs without issue, and we can continue to
support that so long as there are a significant user group unwilling
to say goodbye to Java 1.6.
As for the motivating feature. There are some nice features
(try-with-resources, exception handling syntax, diamond syntax), but
I'm not proposing this change in order to use a new "killer" feature.
What we need to decide is whether or not we will be constrained *not*
to use these features for the development cycle of Accumulo 1.6.x. If
the answer is no, don't switch, yes, be constrained, then we can
revisit the question at the beginning of the Accumulo 1.7.0
development cycle.
--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Adam Fuchs <af...@apache.org> wrote:
> Let's be specific: which Java-1.7-only feature is motivating this change?
> Without knowing the upside I am inclined to vote no because of the number
> of platforms that I regularly see that are running java 1.6.
>
> Adam
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Given all the previous discussions about this, and assuming all points
>> and counterpoints have already been sufficiently enumerated, I'd like
>> to put it to a vote, explicitly:
>>
>> Should we switch to JDK 1.7 for Accumulo 1.6.0, to take advantage of
>> newer features (ACCUMULO-905), or should we continue to require that
>> Accumulo 1.6.0 run on JRE 1.6?
>>
>> --
>> Christopher L Tubbs II
>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>>
Re: [VOTE] JDK 1.7 - Switch for Accumulo 1.6.0
Posted by Adam Fuchs <af...@apache.org>.
Let's be specific: which Java-1.7-only feature is motivating this change?
Without knowing the upside I am inclined to vote no because of the number
of platforms that I regularly see that are running java 1.6.
Adam
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
> Given all the previous discussions about this, and assuming all points
> and counterpoints have already been sufficiently enumerated, I'd like
> to put it to a vote, explicitly:
>
> Should we switch to JDK 1.7 for Accumulo 1.6.0, to take advantage of
> newer features (ACCUMULO-905), or should we continue to require that
> Accumulo 1.6.0 run on JRE 1.6?
>
> --
> Christopher L Tubbs II
> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>
Re: [VOTE] JDK 1.7 - Switch for Accumulo 1.6.0
Posted by William Slacum <wi...@accumulo.net>.
+1 because:
- Java 1.6 has reached EOL, making Java 1.7 inevitable
- we're very early in the planning phase for Accumulo 1.6, which means we
hopefully won't break or invalidate already-contributed features to it
I don't think a 2.0.0 should be motivated by an upgrade in a dependency,
even if it's the most important dependency of all.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 6:23 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> > Dropping JDK6 support is a pretty big deal.
>
> I don't know that it's as big a deal as many think it is, but it is
> certainly big enough to require a vote, I think.
>
> > Is it worth making it a 2.0.0 feature instead of 1.6.0?
> >
> > If not, what would be the distinction for a 2.0.0?
>
> Good question. We have not discussed the kinds of big features that
> would require updating the major revision number in a release. I don't
> think this is it, but if it, then that could be held as a separate
> vote.
>
> > In the mean time we could explicitly change testing to be on JDK7 instead
> > of JDK6 as an initial step.
>
> I don't know what you mean by this. I've been running on JRE7 for
> quite some time (at least 6 months). Other than that, what kind of
> test procedures are you suggesting?
>
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Given all the previous discussions about this, and assuming all points
> >> and counterpoints have already been sufficiently enumerated, I'd like
> >> to put it to a vote, explicitly:
> >>
> >> Should we switch to JDK 1.7 for Accumulo 1.6.0, to take advantage of
> >> newer features (ACCUMULO-905), or should we continue to require that
> >> Accumulo 1.6.0 run on JRE 1.6?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Christopher L Tubbs II
> >> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sean Busbey
> > Solutions Architect
> > Cloudera, Inc.
> > Phone: MAN-VS-BEARD
>
>
> --
> Christopher L Tubbs II
> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>
Re: [VOTE] JDK 1.7 - Switch for Accumulo 1.6.0
Posted by Christopher <ct...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 6:23 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com> wrote:
[snip]
> I was thinking specifically of the CI builds on jenkins.
I see. We can do that, certainly.
> --
> Sean
--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
Re: [VOTE] JDK 1.7 - Switch for Accumulo 1.6.0
Posted by Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 6:23 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
> > In the mean time we could explicitly change testing to be on JDK7 instead
> > of JDK6 as an initial step.
>
> I don't know what you mean by this. I've been running on JRE7 for
> quite some time (at least 6 months). Other than that, what kind of
> test procedures are you suggesting?
>
>
I was thinking specifically of the CI builds on jenkins.
--
Sean
Re: [VOTE] JDK 1.7 - Switch for Accumulo 1.6.0
Posted by Christopher <ct...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> Dropping JDK6 support is a pretty big deal.
I don't know that it's as big a deal as many think it is, but it is
certainly big enough to require a vote, I think.
> Is it worth making it a 2.0.0 feature instead of 1.6.0?
>
> If not, what would be the distinction for a 2.0.0?
Good question. We have not discussed the kinds of big features that
would require updating the major revision number in a release. I don't
think this is it, but if it, then that could be held as a separate
vote.
> In the mean time we could explicitly change testing to be on JDK7 instead
> of JDK6 as an initial step.
I don't know what you mean by this. I've been running on JRE7 for
quite some time (at least 6 months). Other than that, what kind of
test procedures are you suggesting?
>
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Given all the previous discussions about this, and assuming all points
>> and counterpoints have already been sufficiently enumerated, I'd like
>> to put it to a vote, explicitly:
>>
>> Should we switch to JDK 1.7 for Accumulo 1.6.0, to take advantage of
>> newer features (ACCUMULO-905), or should we continue to require that
>> Accumulo 1.6.0 run on JRE 1.6?
>>
>> --
>> Christopher L Tubbs II
>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Sean Busbey
> Solutions Architect
> Cloudera, Inc.
> Phone: MAN-VS-BEARD
--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
Re: [VOTE] JDK 1.7 - Switch for Accumulo 1.6.0
Posted by Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com>.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> Dropping JDK6 support is a pretty big deal.
>
> Is it worth making it a 2.0.0 feature instead of 1.6.0?
>
> If not, what would be the distinction for a 2.0.0?
>
One thing 2.0 could be used for is a new incompatible API.
>
> In the mean time we could explicitly change testing to be on JDK7 instead
> of JDK6 as an initial step.
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Given all the previous discussions about this, and assuming all points
> > and counterpoints have already been sufficiently enumerated, I'd like
> > to put it to a vote, explicitly:
> >
> > Should we switch to JDK 1.7 for Accumulo 1.6.0, to take advantage of
> > newer features (ACCUMULO-905), or should we continue to require that
> > Accumulo 1.6.0 run on JRE 1.6?
> >
> > --
> > Christopher L Tubbs II
> > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Sean Busbey
> Solutions Architect
> Cloudera, Inc.
> Phone: MAN-VS-BEARD
>
Re: [VOTE] JDK 1.7 - Switch for Accumulo 1.6.0
Posted by Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>.
Dropping JDK6 support is a pretty big deal.
Is it worth making it a 2.0.0 feature instead of 1.6.0?
If not, what would be the distinction for a 2.0.0?
In the mean time we could explicitly change testing to be on JDK7 instead
of JDK6 as an initial step.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
> Given all the previous discussions about this, and assuming all points
> and counterpoints have already been sufficiently enumerated, I'd like
> to put it to a vote, explicitly:
>
> Should we switch to JDK 1.7 for Accumulo 1.6.0, to take advantage of
> newer features (ACCUMULO-905), or should we continue to require that
> Accumulo 1.6.0 run on JRE 1.6?
>
> --
> Christopher L Tubbs II
> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>
--
Sean Busbey
Solutions Architect
Cloudera, Inc.
Phone: MAN-VS-BEARD
Re: [VOTE] JDK 1.7 - Switch for Accumulo 1.6.0
Posted by Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com>.
+1
By the time Accumulo 1.6. release, Java 1.7 will have been released for
over two years.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
> Given all the previous discussions about this, and assuming all points
> and counterpoints have already been sufficiently enumerated, I'd like
> to put it to a vote, explicitly:
>
> Should we switch to JDK 1.7 for Accumulo 1.6.0, to take advantage of
> newer features (ACCUMULO-905), or should we continue to require that
> Accumulo 1.6.0 run on JRE 1.6?
>
> --
> Christopher L Tubbs II
> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>
Re: [VOTE] JDK 1.7 - Switch for Accumulo 1.6.0
Posted by Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>.
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
> All-
>
> Please explicitly vote in favor or against changing the java
> dependency to >=1.7.
>
> Parsing vague "may cause..." or "might be..." concerns throughout the
> text of the thread is tedious, and does not help me know what the
> consensus of the group is, so we can move forward. If there's a
> specific issue that is informing your vote, that's great, feel free to
> state it, but I don't want this issue to drag out for the duration of
> the the Accumulo 1.6.0 development cycle because people are reluctant
> to come to a concrete opinion.
>
> If it fails a vote, we'll revisit for Accumulo 1.7.0.
>
> I'm personally in favor of the change (+1), but it's not a big deal to
> me. I just want a concrete resolution.
>
> --
> Christopher L Tubbs II
> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>
>
-1 lack of sufficient testing in Apache Hadoop[1] and lack of support among
common derivative distros.
[1]:
http://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/HadoopJavaVersions
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-9282
--
Sean
Re: [VOTE] JDK 1.7 - Switch for Accumulo 1.6.0
Posted by Jason Trost <ja...@gmail.com>.
+1
--Jason
sent from my DROID
On Jun 5, 2013 6:10 PM, "John Vines" <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
> -1 then
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > The vote was already called, and it was a vote on whether we should do
> > it now (now, as in for Accumulo 1.6.0 development). If you think more
> > time is needed, then your vote should be no. I don't think it's
> > productive to continue to have a meta-discussion about whether or not
> > a discussion/vote should occur. Just vote "-1", with a reason "not
> > enough time to address potential concerns".
> >
> > --
> > Christopher L Tubbs II
> > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 2:14 PM, John Vines <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > Given this thread, I think more discussion is necessary before a vote.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> All-
> > >>
> > >> Please explicitly vote in favor or against changing the java
> > >> dependency to >=1.7.
> > >>
> > >> Parsing vague "may cause..." or "might be..." concerns throughout the
> > >> text of the thread is tedious, and does not help me know what the
> > >> consensus of the group is, so we can move forward. If there's a
> > >> specific issue that is informing your vote, that's great, feel free to
> > >> state it, but I don't want this issue to drag out for the duration of
> > >> the the Accumulo 1.6.0 development cycle because people are reluctant
> > >> to come to a concrete opinion.
> > >>
> > >> If it fails a vote, we'll revisit for Accumulo 1.7.0.
> > >>
> > >> I'm personally in favor of the change (+1), but it's not a big deal to
> > >> me. I just want a concrete resolution.
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Christopher L Tubbs II
> > >> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 10:51 AM, John Vines <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >> > I have also heard mulling about issues with the way Kerberos
> > >> authentication
> > >> > behaves with JDK1.7 for hadoop. This may also have implications on
> the
> > >> > Accumulo implementation as well.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>
> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 10:37 PM, Ben Popp <be...@sqrrl.com> wrote:
> > >> >> <snip>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> > CDH4 claims JDK 1.6 and 1.7 support:
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >>
> > >>
> >
> http://www.cloudera.com/content/cloudera-content/cloudera-docs/CDH4/latest/CDH4-Requirements-and-Supported-Versions/cdhrsv_topic_3.html
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > <snip>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> CDH4 comes with some additional caveats about 1.7:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >>
> >
> http://www.cloudera.com/content/cloudera-content/cloudera-docs/CDH4/latest/CDH4-Release-Notes/cdh4rn_topic_2_2.html?scroll=concept_c1n_bln_tj_unique_1
> > >> >>
> > >> >> The biggest one being the disclaimer about 1.7 compiled code.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> --
> > >> >> Sean
> > >> >>
> > >>
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] JDK 1.7 - Switch for Accumulo 1.6.0
Posted by John Vines <vi...@apache.org>.
-1 then
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
> The vote was already called, and it was a vote on whether we should do
> it now (now, as in for Accumulo 1.6.0 development). If you think more
> time is needed, then your vote should be no. I don't think it's
> productive to continue to have a meta-discussion about whether or not
> a discussion/vote should occur. Just vote "-1", with a reason "not
> enough time to address potential concerns".
>
> --
> Christopher L Tubbs II
> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 2:14 PM, John Vines <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
> > Given this thread, I think more discussion is necessary before a vote.
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> All-
> >>
> >> Please explicitly vote in favor or against changing the java
> >> dependency to >=1.7.
> >>
> >> Parsing vague "may cause..." or "might be..." concerns throughout the
> >> text of the thread is tedious, and does not help me know what the
> >> consensus of the group is, so we can move forward. If there's a
> >> specific issue that is informing your vote, that's great, feel free to
> >> state it, but I don't want this issue to drag out for the duration of
> >> the the Accumulo 1.6.0 development cycle because people are reluctant
> >> to come to a concrete opinion.
> >>
> >> If it fails a vote, we'll revisit for Accumulo 1.7.0.
> >>
> >> I'm personally in favor of the change (+1), but it's not a big deal to
> >> me. I just want a concrete resolution.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Christopher L Tubbs II
> >> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 10:51 AM, John Vines <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> > I have also heard mulling about issues with the way Kerberos
> >> authentication
> >> > behaves with JDK1.7 for hadoop. This may also have implications on the
> >> > Accumulo implementation as well.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 10:37 PM, Ben Popp <be...@sqrrl.com> wrote:
> >> >> <snip>
> >> >>
> >> >> > CDH4 claims JDK 1.6 and 1.7 support:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >>
> http://www.cloudera.com/content/cloudera-content/cloudera-docs/CDH4/latest/CDH4-Requirements-and-Supported-Versions/cdhrsv_topic_3.html
> >> >> >
> >> >> > <snip>
> >> >>
> >> >> CDH4 comes with some additional caveats about 1.7:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
> http://www.cloudera.com/content/cloudera-content/cloudera-docs/CDH4/latest/CDH4-Release-Notes/cdh4rn_topic_2_2.html?scroll=concept_c1n_bln_tj_unique_1
> >> >>
> >> >> The biggest one being the disclaimer about 1.7 compiled code.
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Sean
> >> >>
> >>
>
Re: [VOTE] JDK 1.7 - Switch for Accumulo 1.6.0
Posted by Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com>.
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 7:12 PM, John Vines <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
> "On the other side, Oracle has stated that no further security-related
> issues will be patched on Java 1.6. Given that most people using Accumulo
> are security minded, this is important."
>
> Redhat has actually stepped in and is continuing support for java 1.6, so
> this issue is covered.
>
Thats interesting. Until 1.6, there was major java release every one or
two years. Then there was almost 5 years between 1.6 and 1.7. Given that
1.6 was the only game in town for such a long period I maybe it has
more inertia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_version_history
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 7:09 PM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > -1
> >
> > There is concern that has been voiced by users in which this may alienate
> > them from moving to Accumulo 1.6. Many arguments for moving to Java 1.7
> are
> > based on wanting to use some new feature or syntactic sugar. Also, not
> > building artifacts against Java 1.7 would not keep people from running
> with
> > Java 1.7 (even though Accumulo was built against 1.6).
> >
> > On the other side, Oracle has stated that no further security-related
> > issues will be patched on Java 1.6. Given that most people using Accumulo
> > are security minded, this is important.
> >
> > Forcing Java 1.7 alienates a group of users. Allowing users to run with
> > Java 1.6 or 1.7 virtual machines satisfies all parties. As such, I don't
> > believe this is best.
> >
> > Like John said, I agree that adequate discussion hasn't been had here to
> > justify forcing a change. Accumulo is not that popular that we can force
> > people to do what we think is best. I would be happy to continue to
> > participate in discussions as to the concrete benefits forcing Java 1.7
> > provides.
> >
> >
> > On 06/05/2013 04:42 PM, Christopher wrote:
> >
> >> The vote was already called, and it was a vote on whether we should do
> >> it now (now, as in for Accumulo 1.6.0 development). If you think more
> >> time is needed, then your vote should be no. I don't think it's
> >> productive to continue to have a meta-discussion about whether or not
> >> a discussion/vote should occur. Just vote "-1", with a reason "not
> >> enough time to address potential concerns".
> >>
> >> --
> >> Christopher L Tubbs II
> >> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 2:14 PM, John Vines <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Given this thread, I think more discussion is necessary before a vote.
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> All-
> >>>>
> >>>> Please explicitly vote in favor or against changing the java
> >>>> dependency to >=1.7.
> >>>>
> >>>> Parsing vague "may cause..." or "might be..." concerns throughout the
> >>>> text of the thread is tedious, and does not help me know what the
> >>>> consensus of the group is, so we can move forward. If there's a
> >>>> specific issue that is informing your vote, that's great, feel free to
> >>>> state it, but I don't want this issue to drag out for the duration of
> >>>> the the Accumulo 1.6.0 development cycle because people are reluctant
> >>>> to come to a concrete opinion.
> >>>>
> >>>> If it fails a vote, we'll revisit for Accumulo 1.7.0.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm personally in favor of the change (+1), but it's not a big deal to
> >>>> me. I just want a concrete resolution.
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Christopher L Tubbs II
> >>>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 10:51 AM, John Vines <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I have also heard mulling about issues with the way Kerberos
> >>>>>
> >>>> authentication
> >>>>
> >>>>> behaves with JDK1.7 for hadoop. This may also have implications on
> the
> >>>>> Accumulo implementation as well.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 10:37 PM, Ben Popp <be...@sqrrl.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> <snip>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> CDH4 claims JDK 1.6 and 1.7 support:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> http://www.cloudera.com/**content/cloudera-content/**
> >>>> cloudera-docs/CDH4/latest/**CDH4-Requirements-and-**
> >>>> Supported-Versions/cdhrsv_**topic_3.html<
> http://www.cloudera.com/content/cloudera-content/cloudera-docs/CDH4/latest/CDH4-Requirements-and-Supported-Versions/cdhrsv_topic_3.html
> >
> >>>>
> >>>>> <snip>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> CDH4 comes with some additional caveats about 1.7:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> http://www.cloudera.com/**content/cloudera-content/**
> >>>> cloudera-docs/CDH4/latest/**CDH4-Release-Notes/cdh4rn_**
> >>>> topic_2_2.html?scroll=concept_**c1n_bln_tj_unique_1<
> http://www.cloudera.com/content/cloudera-content/cloudera-docs/CDH4/latest/CDH4-Release-Notes/cdh4rn_topic_2_2.html?scroll=concept_c1n_bln_tj_unique_1
> >
> >>>>
> >>>>> The biggest one being the disclaimer about 1.7 compiled code.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Sean
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] JDK 1.7 - Switch for Accumulo 1.6.0
Posted by John Vines <vi...@apache.org>.
"On the other side, Oracle has stated that no further security-related
issues will be patched on Java 1.6. Given that most people using Accumulo
are security minded, this is important."
Redhat has actually stepped in and is continuing support for java 1.6, so
this issue is covered.
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 7:09 PM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> -1
>
> There is concern that has been voiced by users in which this may alienate
> them from moving to Accumulo 1.6. Many arguments for moving to Java 1.7 are
> based on wanting to use some new feature or syntactic sugar. Also, not
> building artifacts against Java 1.7 would not keep people from running with
> Java 1.7 (even though Accumulo was built against 1.6).
>
> On the other side, Oracle has stated that no further security-related
> issues will be patched on Java 1.6. Given that most people using Accumulo
> are security minded, this is important.
>
> Forcing Java 1.7 alienates a group of users. Allowing users to run with
> Java 1.6 or 1.7 virtual machines satisfies all parties. As such, I don't
> believe this is best.
>
> Like John said, I agree that adequate discussion hasn't been had here to
> justify forcing a change. Accumulo is not that popular that we can force
> people to do what we think is best. I would be happy to continue to
> participate in discussions as to the concrete benefits forcing Java 1.7
> provides.
>
>
> On 06/05/2013 04:42 PM, Christopher wrote:
>
>> The vote was already called, and it was a vote on whether we should do
>> it now (now, as in for Accumulo 1.6.0 development). If you think more
>> time is needed, then your vote should be no. I don't think it's
>> productive to continue to have a meta-discussion about whether or not
>> a discussion/vote should occur. Just vote "-1", with a reason "not
>> enough time to address potential concerns".
>>
>> --
>> Christopher L Tubbs II
>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 2:14 PM, John Vines <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Given this thread, I think more discussion is necessary before a vote.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> All-
>>>>
>>>> Please explicitly vote in favor or against changing the java
>>>> dependency to >=1.7.
>>>>
>>>> Parsing vague "may cause..." or "might be..." concerns throughout the
>>>> text of the thread is tedious, and does not help me know what the
>>>> consensus of the group is, so we can move forward. If there's a
>>>> specific issue that is informing your vote, that's great, feel free to
>>>> state it, but I don't want this issue to drag out for the duration of
>>>> the the Accumulo 1.6.0 development cycle because people are reluctant
>>>> to come to a concrete opinion.
>>>>
>>>> If it fails a vote, we'll revisit for Accumulo 1.7.0.
>>>>
>>>> I'm personally in favor of the change (+1), but it's not a big deal to
>>>> me. I just want a concrete resolution.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Christopher L Tubbs II
>>>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 10:51 AM, John Vines <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I have also heard mulling about issues with the way Kerberos
>>>>>
>>>> authentication
>>>>
>>>>> behaves with JDK1.7 for hadoop. This may also have implications on the
>>>>> Accumulo implementation as well.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 10:37 PM, Ben Popp <be...@sqrrl.com> wrote:
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> CDH4 claims JDK 1.6 and 1.7 support:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.cloudera.com/**content/cloudera-content/**
>>>> cloudera-docs/CDH4/latest/**CDH4-Requirements-and-**
>>>> Supported-Versions/cdhrsv_**topic_3.html<http://www.cloudera.com/content/cloudera-content/cloudera-docs/CDH4/latest/CDH4-Requirements-and-Supported-Versions/cdhrsv_topic_3.html>
>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> CDH4 comes with some additional caveats about 1.7:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.cloudera.com/**content/cloudera-content/**
>>>> cloudera-docs/CDH4/latest/**CDH4-Release-Notes/cdh4rn_**
>>>> topic_2_2.html?scroll=concept_**c1n_bln_tj_unique_1<http://www.cloudera.com/content/cloudera-content/cloudera-docs/CDH4/latest/CDH4-Release-Notes/cdh4rn_topic_2_2.html?scroll=concept_c1n_bln_tj_unique_1>
>>>>
>>>>> The biggest one being the disclaimer about 1.7 compiled code.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Sean
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>
Re: [VOTE] JDK 1.7 - Switch for Accumulo 1.6.0
Posted by David Medinets <da...@gmail.com>.
-1 to switch. I see no compelling reason to move to java 1.7. Especially
given the vast amount of work that is already slated for Accumulo 1.6.
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 7:25 PM, Mike Drob <md...@mdrob.com> wrote:
> I think building the binary release using 1.7, but still maintaining 1.6
> compatibility is a nice compromise. You're providing enough of a carrot to
> use 1.7 (hey look, we already built it for you), but you're not alienating
> the users that still need 1.6 classes for whatever reason. If something
> like this were to be implemented, then it would be necessary to provide
> very clear documentation on how to run Accumulo on different JREs.
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 7:09 PM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > -1
> >
> > There is concern that has been voiced by users in which this may alienate
> > them from moving to Accumulo 1.6. Many arguments for moving to Java 1.7
> are
> > based on wanting to use some new feature or syntactic sugar. Also, not
> > building artifacts against Java 1.7 would not keep people from running
> with
> > Java 1.7 (even though Accumulo was built against 1.6).
> >
> > On the other side, Oracle has stated that no further security-related
> > issues will be patched on Java 1.6. Given that most people using Accumulo
> > are security minded, this is important.
> >
> > Forcing Java 1.7 alienates a group of users. Allowing users to run with
> > Java 1.6 or 1.7 virtual machines satisfies all parties. As such, I don't
> > believe this is best.
> >
> > Like John said, I agree that adequate discussion hasn't been had here to
> > justify forcing a change. Accumulo is not that popular that we can force
> > people to do what we think is best. I would be happy to continue to
> > participate in discussions as to the concrete benefits forcing Java 1.7
> > provides.
> >
> >
> > On 06/05/2013 04:42 PM, Christopher wrote:
> >
> >> The vote was already called, and it was a vote on whether we should do
> >> it now (now, as in for Accumulo 1.6.0 development). If you think more
> >> time is needed, then your vote should be no. I don't think it's
> >> productive to continue to have a meta-discussion about whether or not
> >> a discussion/vote should occur. Just vote "-1", with a reason "not
> >> enough time to address potential concerns".
> >>
> >> --
> >> Christopher L Tubbs II
> >> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 2:14 PM, John Vines <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Given this thread, I think more discussion is necessary before a vote.
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> All-
> >>>>
> >>>> Please explicitly vote in favor or against changing the java
> >>>> dependency to >=1.7.
> >>>>
> >>>> Parsing vague "may cause..." or "might be..." concerns throughout the
> >>>> text of the thread is tedious, and does not help me know what the
> >>>> consensus of the group is, so we can move forward. If there's a
> >>>> specific issue that is informing your vote, that's great, feel free to
> >>>> state it, but I don't want this issue to drag out for the duration of
> >>>> the the Accumulo 1.6.0 development cycle because people are reluctant
> >>>> to come to a concrete opinion.
> >>>>
> >>>> If it fails a vote, we'll revisit for Accumulo 1.7.0.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm personally in favor of the change (+1), but it's not a big deal to
> >>>> me. I just want a concrete resolution.
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Christopher L Tubbs II
> >>>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 10:51 AM, John Vines <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I have also heard mulling about issues with the way Kerberos
> >>>>>
> >>>> authentication
> >>>>
> >>>>> behaves with JDK1.7 for hadoop. This may also have implications on
> the
> >>>>> Accumulo implementation as well.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 10:37 PM, Ben Popp <be...@sqrrl.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> <snip>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> CDH4 claims JDK 1.6 and 1.7 support:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> http://www.cloudera.com/**content/cloudera-content/**
> >>>> cloudera-docs/CDH4/latest/**CDH4-Requirements-and-**
> >>>> Supported-Versions/cdhrsv_**topic_3.html<
> http://www.cloudera.com/content/cloudera-content/cloudera-docs/CDH4/latest/CDH4-Requirements-and-Supported-Versions/cdhrsv_topic_3.html
> >
> >>>>
> >>>>> <snip>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> CDH4 comes with some additional caveats about 1.7:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> http://www.cloudera.com/**content/cloudera-content/**
> >>>> cloudera-docs/CDH4/latest/**CDH4-Release-Notes/cdh4rn_**
> >>>> topic_2_2.html?scroll=concept_**c1n_bln_tj_unique_1<
> http://www.cloudera.com/content/cloudera-content/cloudera-docs/CDH4/latest/CDH4-Release-Notes/cdh4rn_topic_2_2.html?scroll=concept_c1n_bln_tj_unique_1
> >
> >>>>
> >>>>> The biggest one being the disclaimer about 1.7 compiled code.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Sean
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] JDK 1.7 - Switch for Accumulo 1.6.0
Posted by Mike Drob <md...@mdrob.com>.
Also. -1 because I forgot that there was a vote open.
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 7:25 PM, Mike Drob <md...@mdrob.com> wrote:
> I think building the binary release using 1.7, but still maintaining 1.6
> compatibility is a nice compromise. You're providing enough of a carrot to
> use 1.7 (hey look, we already built it for you), but you're not alienating
> the users that still need 1.6 classes for whatever reason. If something
> like this were to be implemented, then it would be necessary to provide
> very clear documentation on how to run Accumulo on different JREs.
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 7:09 PM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> -1
>>
>> There is concern that has been voiced by users in which this may alienate
>> them from moving to Accumulo 1.6. Many arguments for moving to Java 1.7 are
>> based on wanting to use some new feature or syntactic sugar. Also, not
>> building artifacts against Java 1.7 would not keep people from running with
>> Java 1.7 (even though Accumulo was built against 1.6).
>>
>> On the other side, Oracle has stated that no further security-related
>> issues will be patched on Java 1.6. Given that most people using Accumulo
>> are security minded, this is important.
>>
>> Forcing Java 1.7 alienates a group of users. Allowing users to run with
>> Java 1.6 or 1.7 virtual machines satisfies all parties. As such, I don't
>> believe this is best.
>>
>> Like John said, I agree that adequate discussion hasn't been had here to
>> justify forcing a change. Accumulo is not that popular that we can force
>> people to do what we think is best. I would be happy to continue to
>> participate in discussions as to the concrete benefits forcing Java 1.7
>> provides.
>>
>>
>> On 06/05/2013 04:42 PM, Christopher wrote:
>>
>>> The vote was already called, and it was a vote on whether we should do
>>> it now (now, as in for Accumulo 1.6.0 development). If you think more
>>> time is needed, then your vote should be no. I don't think it's
>>> productive to continue to have a meta-discussion about whether or not
>>> a discussion/vote should occur. Just vote "-1", with a reason "not
>>> enough time to address potential concerns".
>>>
>>> --
>>> Christopher L Tubbs II
>>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 2:14 PM, John Vines <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Given this thread, I think more discussion is necessary before a vote.
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> All-
>>>>>
>>>>> Please explicitly vote in favor or against changing the java
>>>>> dependency to >=1.7.
>>>>>
>>>>> Parsing vague "may cause..." or "might be..." concerns throughout the
>>>>> text of the thread is tedious, and does not help me know what the
>>>>> consensus of the group is, so we can move forward. If there's a
>>>>> specific issue that is informing your vote, that's great, feel free to
>>>>> state it, but I don't want this issue to drag out for the duration of
>>>>> the the Accumulo 1.6.0 development cycle because people are reluctant
>>>>> to come to a concrete opinion.
>>>>>
>>>>> If it fails a vote, we'll revisit for Accumulo 1.7.0.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm personally in favor of the change (+1), but it's not a big deal to
>>>>> me. I just want a concrete resolution.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Christopher L Tubbs II
>>>>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 10:51 AM, John Vines <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I have also heard mulling about issues with the way Kerberos
>>>>>>
>>>>> authentication
>>>>>
>>>>>> behaves with JDK1.7 for hadoop. This may also have implications on the
>>>>>> Accumulo implementation as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 10:37 PM, Ben Popp <be...@sqrrl.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> CDH4 claims JDK 1.6 and 1.7 support:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.cloudera.com/**content/cloudera-content/**
>>>>> cloudera-docs/CDH4/latest/**CDH4-Requirements-and-**
>>>>> Supported-Versions/cdhrsv_**topic_3.html<http://www.cloudera.com/content/cloudera-content/cloudera-docs/CDH4/latest/CDH4-Requirements-and-Supported-Versions/cdhrsv_topic_3.html>
>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> CDH4 comes with some additional caveats about 1.7:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.cloudera.com/**content/cloudera-content/**
>>>>> cloudera-docs/CDH4/latest/**CDH4-Release-Notes/cdh4rn_**
>>>>> topic_2_2.html?scroll=concept_**c1n_bln_tj_unique_1<http://www.cloudera.com/content/cloudera-content/cloudera-docs/CDH4/latest/CDH4-Release-Notes/cdh4rn_topic_2_2.html?scroll=concept_c1n_bln_tj_unique_1>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The biggest one being the disclaimer about 1.7 compiled code.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Sean
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] JDK 1.7 - Switch for Accumulo 1.6.0
Posted by Mike Drob <md...@mdrob.com>.
I think building the binary release using 1.7, but still maintaining 1.6
compatibility is a nice compromise. You're providing enough of a carrot to
use 1.7 (hey look, we already built it for you), but you're not alienating
the users that still need 1.6 classes for whatever reason. If something
like this were to be implemented, then it would be necessary to provide
very clear documentation on how to run Accumulo on different JREs.
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 7:09 PM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> -1
>
> There is concern that has been voiced by users in which this may alienate
> them from moving to Accumulo 1.6. Many arguments for moving to Java 1.7 are
> based on wanting to use some new feature or syntactic sugar. Also, not
> building artifacts against Java 1.7 would not keep people from running with
> Java 1.7 (even though Accumulo was built against 1.6).
>
> On the other side, Oracle has stated that no further security-related
> issues will be patched on Java 1.6. Given that most people using Accumulo
> are security minded, this is important.
>
> Forcing Java 1.7 alienates a group of users. Allowing users to run with
> Java 1.6 or 1.7 virtual machines satisfies all parties. As such, I don't
> believe this is best.
>
> Like John said, I agree that adequate discussion hasn't been had here to
> justify forcing a change. Accumulo is not that popular that we can force
> people to do what we think is best. I would be happy to continue to
> participate in discussions as to the concrete benefits forcing Java 1.7
> provides.
>
>
> On 06/05/2013 04:42 PM, Christopher wrote:
>
>> The vote was already called, and it was a vote on whether we should do
>> it now (now, as in for Accumulo 1.6.0 development). If you think more
>> time is needed, then your vote should be no. I don't think it's
>> productive to continue to have a meta-discussion about whether or not
>> a discussion/vote should occur. Just vote "-1", with a reason "not
>> enough time to address potential concerns".
>>
>> --
>> Christopher L Tubbs II
>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 2:14 PM, John Vines <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Given this thread, I think more discussion is necessary before a vote.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> All-
>>>>
>>>> Please explicitly vote in favor or against changing the java
>>>> dependency to >=1.7.
>>>>
>>>> Parsing vague "may cause..." or "might be..." concerns throughout the
>>>> text of the thread is tedious, and does not help me know what the
>>>> consensus of the group is, so we can move forward. If there's a
>>>> specific issue that is informing your vote, that's great, feel free to
>>>> state it, but I don't want this issue to drag out for the duration of
>>>> the the Accumulo 1.6.0 development cycle because people are reluctant
>>>> to come to a concrete opinion.
>>>>
>>>> If it fails a vote, we'll revisit for Accumulo 1.7.0.
>>>>
>>>> I'm personally in favor of the change (+1), but it's not a big deal to
>>>> me. I just want a concrete resolution.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Christopher L Tubbs II
>>>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 10:51 AM, John Vines <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I have also heard mulling about issues with the way Kerberos
>>>>>
>>>> authentication
>>>>
>>>>> behaves with JDK1.7 for hadoop. This may also have implications on the
>>>>> Accumulo implementation as well.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 10:37 PM, Ben Popp <be...@sqrrl.com> wrote:
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> CDH4 claims JDK 1.6 and 1.7 support:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.cloudera.com/**content/cloudera-content/**
>>>> cloudera-docs/CDH4/latest/**CDH4-Requirements-and-**
>>>> Supported-Versions/cdhrsv_**topic_3.html<http://www.cloudera.com/content/cloudera-content/cloudera-docs/CDH4/latest/CDH4-Requirements-and-Supported-Versions/cdhrsv_topic_3.html>
>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> CDH4 comes with some additional caveats about 1.7:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.cloudera.com/**content/cloudera-content/**
>>>> cloudera-docs/CDH4/latest/**CDH4-Release-Notes/cdh4rn_**
>>>> topic_2_2.html?scroll=concept_**c1n_bln_tj_unique_1<http://www.cloudera.com/content/cloudera-content/cloudera-docs/CDH4/latest/CDH4-Release-Notes/cdh4rn_topic_2_2.html?scroll=concept_c1n_bln_tj_unique_1>
>>>>
>>>>> The biggest one being the disclaimer about 1.7 compiled code.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Sean
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>
Re: [VOTE] JDK 1.7 - Switch for Accumulo 1.6.0
Posted by Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com>.
-1
There is concern that has been voiced by users in which this may
alienate them from moving to Accumulo 1.6. Many arguments for moving to
Java 1.7 are based on wanting to use some new feature or syntactic
sugar. Also, not building artifacts against Java 1.7 would not keep
people from running with Java 1.7 (even though Accumulo was built
against 1.6).
On the other side, Oracle has stated that no further security-related
issues will be patched on Java 1.6. Given that most people using
Accumulo are security minded, this is important.
Forcing Java 1.7 alienates a group of users. Allowing users to run with
Java 1.6 or 1.7 virtual machines satisfies all parties. As such, I don't
believe this is best.
Like John said, I agree that adequate discussion hasn't been had here to
justify forcing a change. Accumulo is not that popular that we can force
people to do what we think is best. I would be happy to continue to
participate in discussions as to the concrete benefits forcing Java 1.7
provides.
On 06/05/2013 04:42 PM, Christopher wrote:
> The vote was already called, and it was a vote on whether we should do
> it now (now, as in for Accumulo 1.6.0 development). If you think more
> time is needed, then your vote should be no. I don't think it's
> productive to continue to have a meta-discussion about whether or not
> a discussion/vote should occur. Just vote "-1", with a reason "not
> enough time to address potential concerns".
>
> --
> Christopher L Tubbs II
> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 2:14 PM, John Vines <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Given this thread, I think more discussion is necessary before a vote.
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> All-
>>>
>>> Please explicitly vote in favor or against changing the java
>>> dependency to >=1.7.
>>>
>>> Parsing vague "may cause..." or "might be..." concerns throughout the
>>> text of the thread is tedious, and does not help me know what the
>>> consensus of the group is, so we can move forward. If there's a
>>> specific issue that is informing your vote, that's great, feel free to
>>> state it, but I don't want this issue to drag out for the duration of
>>> the the Accumulo 1.6.0 development cycle because people are reluctant
>>> to come to a concrete opinion.
>>>
>>> If it fails a vote, we'll revisit for Accumulo 1.7.0.
>>>
>>> I'm personally in favor of the change (+1), but it's not a big deal to
>>> me. I just want a concrete resolution.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Christopher L Tubbs II
>>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 10:51 AM, John Vines <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> I have also heard mulling about issues with the way Kerberos
>>> authentication
>>>> behaves with JDK1.7 for hadoop. This may also have implications on the
>>>> Accumulo implementation as well.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 10:37 PM, Ben Popp <be...@sqrrl.com> wrote:
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>> CDH4 claims JDK 1.6 and 1.7 support:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>> http://www.cloudera.com/content/cloudera-content/cloudera-docs/CDH4/latest/CDH4-Requirements-and-Supported-Versions/cdhrsv_topic_3.html
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>> CDH4 comes with some additional caveats about 1.7:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> http://www.cloudera.com/content/cloudera-content/cloudera-docs/CDH4/latest/CDH4-Release-Notes/cdh4rn_topic_2_2.html?scroll=concept_c1n_bln_tj_unique_1
>>>>> The biggest one being the disclaimer about 1.7 compiled code.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Sean
>>>>>
Re: [VOTE] JDK 1.7 - Switch for Accumulo 1.6.0
Posted by Christopher <ct...@apache.org>.
The vote was already called, and it was a vote on whether we should do
it now (now, as in for Accumulo 1.6.0 development). If you think more
time is needed, then your vote should be no. I don't think it's
productive to continue to have a meta-discussion about whether or not
a discussion/vote should occur. Just vote "-1", with a reason "not
enough time to address potential concerns".
--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 2:14 PM, John Vines <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
> Given this thread, I think more discussion is necessary before a vote.
>
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> All-
>>
>> Please explicitly vote in favor or against changing the java
>> dependency to >=1.7.
>>
>> Parsing vague "may cause..." or "might be..." concerns throughout the
>> text of the thread is tedious, and does not help me know what the
>> consensus of the group is, so we can move forward. If there's a
>> specific issue that is informing your vote, that's great, feel free to
>> state it, but I don't want this issue to drag out for the duration of
>> the the Accumulo 1.6.0 development cycle because people are reluctant
>> to come to a concrete opinion.
>>
>> If it fails a vote, we'll revisit for Accumulo 1.7.0.
>>
>> I'm personally in favor of the change (+1), but it's not a big deal to
>> me. I just want a concrete resolution.
>>
>> --
>> Christopher L Tubbs II
>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 10:51 AM, John Vines <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
>> > I have also heard mulling about issues with the way Kerberos
>> authentication
>> > behaves with JDK1.7 for hadoop. This may also have implications on the
>> > Accumulo implementation as well.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 10:37 PM, Ben Popp <be...@sqrrl.com> wrote:
>> >> <snip>
>> >>
>> >> > CDH4 claims JDK 1.6 and 1.7 support:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> http://www.cloudera.com/content/cloudera-content/cloudera-docs/CDH4/latest/CDH4-Requirements-and-Supported-Versions/cdhrsv_topic_3.html
>> >> >
>> >> > <snip>
>> >>
>> >> CDH4 comes with some additional caveats about 1.7:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> http://www.cloudera.com/content/cloudera-content/cloudera-docs/CDH4/latest/CDH4-Release-Notes/cdh4rn_topic_2_2.html?scroll=concept_c1n_bln_tj_unique_1
>> >>
>> >> The biggest one being the disclaimer about 1.7 compiled code.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Sean
>> >>
>>
Re: [VOTE] JDK 1.7 - Switch for Accumulo 1.6.0
Posted by Eric Newton <er...@gmail.com>.
+1
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Adam Fuchs <af...@apache.org> wrote:
> -1
>
> Adam
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 2:14 PM, John Vines <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Given this thread, I think more discussion is necessary before a vote.
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > All-
> > >
> > > Please explicitly vote in favor or against changing the java
> > > dependency to >=1.7.
> > >
> > > Parsing vague "may cause..." or "might be..." concerns throughout the
> > > text of the thread is tedious, and does not help me know what the
> > > consensus of the group is, so we can move forward. If there's a
> > > specific issue that is informing your vote, that's great, feel free to
> > > state it, but I don't want this issue to drag out for the duration of
> > > the the Accumulo 1.6.0 development cycle because people are reluctant
> > > to come to a concrete opinion.
> > >
> > > If it fails a vote, we'll revisit for Accumulo 1.7.0.
> > >
> > > I'm personally in favor of the change (+1), but it's not a big deal to
> > > me. I just want a concrete resolution.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Christopher L Tubbs II
> > > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 10:51 AM, John Vines <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > I have also heard mulling about issues with the way Kerberos
> > > authentication
> > > > behaves with JDK1.7 for hadoop. This may also have implications on
> the
> > > > Accumulo implementation as well.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 10:37 PM, Ben Popp <be...@sqrrl.com> wrote:
> > > >> <snip>
> > > >>
> > > >> > CDH4 claims JDK 1.6 and 1.7 support:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> http://www.cloudera.com/content/cloudera-content/cloudera-docs/CDH4/latest/CDH4-Requirements-and-Supported-Versions/cdhrsv_topic_3.html
> > > >> >
> > > >> > <snip>
> > > >>
> > > >> CDH4 comes with some additional caveats about 1.7:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> http://www.cloudera.com/content/cloudera-content/cloudera-docs/CDH4/latest/CDH4-Release-Notes/cdh4rn_topic_2_2.html?scroll=concept_c1n_bln_tj_unique_1
> > > >>
> > > >> The biggest one being the disclaimer about 1.7 compiled code.
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Sean
> > > >>
> > >
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] JDK 1.7 - Switch for Accumulo 1.6.0
Posted by Adam Fuchs <af...@apache.org>.
-1
Adam
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 2:14 PM, John Vines <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
> Given this thread, I think more discussion is necessary before a vote.
>
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > All-
> >
> > Please explicitly vote in favor or against changing the java
> > dependency to >=1.7.
> >
> > Parsing vague "may cause..." or "might be..." concerns throughout the
> > text of the thread is tedious, and does not help me know what the
> > consensus of the group is, so we can move forward. If there's a
> > specific issue that is informing your vote, that's great, feel free to
> > state it, but I don't want this issue to drag out for the duration of
> > the the Accumulo 1.6.0 development cycle because people are reluctant
> > to come to a concrete opinion.
> >
> > If it fails a vote, we'll revisit for Accumulo 1.7.0.
> >
> > I'm personally in favor of the change (+1), but it's not a big deal to
> > me. I just want a concrete resolution.
> >
> > --
> > Christopher L Tubbs II
> > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 10:51 AM, John Vines <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > I have also heard mulling about issues with the way Kerberos
> > authentication
> > > behaves with JDK1.7 for hadoop. This may also have implications on the
> > > Accumulo implementation as well.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 10:37 PM, Ben Popp <be...@sqrrl.com> wrote:
> > >> <snip>
> > >>
> > >> > CDH4 claims JDK 1.6 and 1.7 support:
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> http://www.cloudera.com/content/cloudera-content/cloudera-docs/CDH4/latest/CDH4-Requirements-and-Supported-Versions/cdhrsv_topic_3.html
> > >> >
> > >> > <snip>
> > >>
> > >> CDH4 comes with some additional caveats about 1.7:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> http://www.cloudera.com/content/cloudera-content/cloudera-docs/CDH4/latest/CDH4-Release-Notes/cdh4rn_topic_2_2.html?scroll=concept_c1n_bln_tj_unique_1
> > >>
> > >> The biggest one being the disclaimer about 1.7 compiled code.
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Sean
> > >>
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] JDK 1.7 - Switch for Accumulo 1.6.0
Posted by John Vines <vi...@apache.org>.
Given this thread, I think more discussion is necessary before a vote.
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
> All-
>
> Please explicitly vote in favor or against changing the java
> dependency to >=1.7.
>
> Parsing vague "may cause..." or "might be..." concerns throughout the
> text of the thread is tedious, and does not help me know what the
> consensus of the group is, so we can move forward. If there's a
> specific issue that is informing your vote, that's great, feel free to
> state it, but I don't want this issue to drag out for the duration of
> the the Accumulo 1.6.0 development cycle because people are reluctant
> to come to a concrete opinion.
>
> If it fails a vote, we'll revisit for Accumulo 1.7.0.
>
> I'm personally in favor of the change (+1), but it's not a big deal to
> me. I just want a concrete resolution.
>
> --
> Christopher L Tubbs II
> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 10:51 AM, John Vines <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
> > I have also heard mulling about issues with the way Kerberos
> authentication
> > behaves with JDK1.7 for hadoop. This may also have implications on the
> > Accumulo implementation as well.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 10:37 PM, Ben Popp <be...@sqrrl.com> wrote:
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> > CDH4 claims JDK 1.6 and 1.7 support:
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> http://www.cloudera.com/content/cloudera-content/cloudera-docs/CDH4/latest/CDH4-Requirements-and-Supported-Versions/cdhrsv_topic_3.html
> >> >
> >> > <snip>
> >>
> >> CDH4 comes with some additional caveats about 1.7:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> http://www.cloudera.com/content/cloudera-content/cloudera-docs/CDH4/latest/CDH4-Release-Notes/cdh4rn_topic_2_2.html?scroll=concept_c1n_bln_tj_unique_1
> >>
> >> The biggest one being the disclaimer about 1.7 compiled code.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Sean
> >>
>
Re: [VOTE] JDK 1.7 - Switch for Accumulo 1.6.0
Posted by Christopher <ct...@apache.org>.
The vote has closed. The final results, as I see them, are:
PMC (+6, -4)
+1: Christopher Tubbs, Keith Turner, William Slacum, Dave Marion (with
reservations), Eric Newton, Jason Trost
-1: Adam Fuchs, John Vines, Josh Elser, David Medinets
Other (+1, -3)
+1: German Gutierrez
-1: Sean Busbey, Mike Drob, David Lyle
If we count all votes, it's a tie. And if we only count PMC, it's
still pretty split, especially considering Dave Marion's +1 came with
reservations. Either way, I'm thinking there isn't enough consensus
(not for me to be comfortable commit the change). So, in the interests
of moving forward and playing cautiously, I think we can table this
and postpone it for the 1.6.0 development cycle. We can revisit this
at the beginning of the 1.7.0 development cycle.
--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
> Agreed.
>
> --
> Christopher L Tubbs II
> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> That would have also been my assumption since it was not otherwise stated.
>> However, given the nature of this vote, I believe non-binding votes should
>> also be carefully considered.
>>
>>
>> On 6/6/13 10:22 AM, Billie Rinaldi wrote:
>>>
>>> I would assume all our votes are "community welcome to vote, only
>>> committers binding."
>>>
>>> Billie
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 6:52 AM, David Medinets
>>> <da...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Who is voting - the accumulo community, the PMC members, or some other
>>>> subset of people?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 11:51 PM, David Lyle <dl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> -1 Prefer to stay on java 1.6 until pulled by features or eol.
>>>>>
>>>>> -D...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 10:53 PM, German Gutierrez
>>>>> <gu...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello Everyone,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I vote for in favor.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>
>>>>>> German A. Gutierrez
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org>
>>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All-
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please explicitly vote in favor or against changing the java
>>>>>>> dependency to >=1.7.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Parsing vague "may cause..." or "might be..." concerns throughout the
>>>>>>> text of the thread is tedious, and does not help me know what the
>>>>>>> consensus of the group is, so we can move forward. If there's a
>>>>>>> specific issue that is informing your vote, that's great, feel free
>>>>
>>>> to
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> state it, but I don't want this issue to drag out for the duration of
>>>>>>> the the Accumulo 1.6.0 development cycle because people are reluctant
>>>>>>> to come to a concrete opinion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If it fails a vote, we'll revisit for Accumulo 1.7.0.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm personally in favor of the change (+1), but it's not a big deal
>>>>
>>>> to
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> me. I just want a concrete resolution.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Christopher L Tubbs II
>>>>>>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 10:51 AM, John Vines <vi...@apache.org>
>>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have also heard mulling about issues with the way Kerberos
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> authentication
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> behaves with JDK1.7 for hadoop. This may also have implications on
>>>>>
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Accumulo implementation as well.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 10:37 PM, Ben Popp <be...@sqrrl.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> CDH4 claims JDK 1.6 and 1.7 support:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.cloudera.com/content/cloudera-content/cloudera-docs/CDH4/latest/CDH4-Requirements-and-Supported-Versions/cdhrsv_topic_3.html
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> CDH4 comes with some additional caveats about 1.7:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.cloudera.com/content/cloudera-content/cloudera-docs/CDH4/latest/CDH4-Release-Notes/cdh4rn_topic_2_2.html?scroll=concept_c1n_bln_tj_unique_1
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The biggest one being the disclaimer about 1.7 compiled code.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Sean
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
Re: [VOTE] JDK 1.7 - Switch for Accumulo 1.6.0
Posted by Christopher <ct...@apache.org>.
Agreed.
--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That would have also been my assumption since it was not otherwise stated.
> However, given the nature of this vote, I believe non-binding votes should
> also be carefully considered.
>
>
> On 6/6/13 10:22 AM, Billie Rinaldi wrote:
>>
>> I would assume all our votes are "community welcome to vote, only
>> committers binding."
>>
>> Billie
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 6:52 AM, David Medinets
>> <da...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Who is voting - the accumulo community, the PMC members, or some other
>>> subset of people?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 11:51 PM, David Lyle <dl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> -1 Prefer to stay on java 1.6 until pulled by features or eol.
>>>>
>>>> -D...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 10:53 PM, German Gutierrez
>>>> <gu...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hello Everyone,
>>>>>
>>>>> I vote for in favor.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>> German A. Gutierrez
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org>
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> All-
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please explicitly vote in favor or against changing the java
>>>>>> dependency to >=1.7.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Parsing vague "may cause..." or "might be..." concerns throughout the
>>>>>> text of the thread is tedious, and does not help me know what the
>>>>>> consensus of the group is, so we can move forward. If there's a
>>>>>> specific issue that is informing your vote, that's great, feel free
>>>
>>> to
>>>>>>
>>>>>> state it, but I don't want this issue to drag out for the duration of
>>>>>> the the Accumulo 1.6.0 development cycle because people are reluctant
>>>>>> to come to a concrete opinion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If it fails a vote, we'll revisit for Accumulo 1.7.0.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm personally in favor of the change (+1), but it's not a big deal
>>>
>>> to
>>>>>>
>>>>>> me. I just want a concrete resolution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Christopher L Tubbs II
>>>>>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 10:51 AM, John Vines <vi...@apache.org>
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have also heard mulling about issues with the way Kerberos
>>>>>>
>>>>>> authentication
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> behaves with JDK1.7 for hadoop. This may also have implications on
>>>>
>>>> the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Accumulo implementation as well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 10:37 PM, Ben Popp <be...@sqrrl.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> CDH4 claims JDK 1.6 and 1.7 support:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.cloudera.com/content/cloudera-content/cloudera-docs/CDH4/latest/CDH4-Requirements-and-Supported-Versions/cdhrsv_topic_3.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> CDH4 comes with some additional caveats about 1.7:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.cloudera.com/content/cloudera-content/cloudera-docs/CDH4/latest/CDH4-Release-Notes/cdh4rn_topic_2_2.html?scroll=concept_c1n_bln_tj_unique_1
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The biggest one being the disclaimer about 1.7 compiled code.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Sean
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] JDK 1.7 - Switch for Accumulo 1.6.0
Posted by Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com>.
That would have also been my assumption since it was not otherwise
stated. However, given the nature of this vote, I believe non-binding
votes should also be carefully considered.
On 6/6/13 10:22 AM, Billie Rinaldi wrote:
> I would assume all our votes are "community welcome to vote, only
> committers binding."
>
> Billie
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 6:52 AM, David Medinets <da...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Who is voting - the accumulo community, the PMC members, or some other
>> subset of people?
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 11:51 PM, David Lyle <dl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> -1 Prefer to stay on java 1.6 until pulled by features or eol.
>>>
>>> -D...
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 10:53 PM, German Gutierrez
>>> <gu...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello Everyone,
>>>>
>>>> I vote for in favor.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>> German A. Gutierrez
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> All-
>>>>>
>>>>> Please explicitly vote in favor or against changing the java
>>>>> dependency to >=1.7.
>>>>>
>>>>> Parsing vague "may cause..." or "might be..." concerns throughout the
>>>>> text of the thread is tedious, and does not help me know what the
>>>>> consensus of the group is, so we can move forward. If there's a
>>>>> specific issue that is informing your vote, that's great, feel free
>> to
>>>>> state it, but I don't want this issue to drag out for the duration of
>>>>> the the Accumulo 1.6.0 development cycle because people are reluctant
>>>>> to come to a concrete opinion.
>>>>>
>>>>> If it fails a vote, we'll revisit for Accumulo 1.7.0.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm personally in favor of the change (+1), but it's not a big deal
>> to
>>>>> me. I just want a concrete resolution.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Christopher L Tubbs II
>>>>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 10:51 AM, John Vines <vi...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>>>>> I have also heard mulling about issues with the way Kerberos
>>>>> authentication
>>>>>> behaves with JDK1.7 for hadoop. This may also have implications on
>>> the
>>>>>> Accumulo implementation as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 10:37 PM, Ben Popp <be...@sqrrl.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> CDH4 claims JDK 1.6 and 1.7 support:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> http://www.cloudera.com/content/cloudera-content/cloudera-docs/CDH4/latest/CDH4-Requirements-and-Supported-Versions/cdhrsv_topic_3.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> CDH4 comes with some additional caveats about 1.7:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> http://www.cloudera.com/content/cloudera-content/cloudera-docs/CDH4/latest/CDH4-Release-Notes/cdh4rn_topic_2_2.html?scroll=concept_c1n_bln_tj_unique_1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The biggest one being the disclaimer about 1.7 compiled code.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Sean
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] JDK 1.7 - Switch for Accumulo 1.6.0
Posted by Billie Rinaldi <bi...@gmail.com>.
I would assume all our votes are "community welcome to vote, only
committers binding."
Billie
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 6:52 AM, David Medinets <da...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Who is voting - the accumulo community, the PMC members, or some other
> subset of people?
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 11:51 PM, David Lyle <dl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > -1 Prefer to stay on java 1.6 until pulled by features or eol.
> >
> > -D...
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 10:53 PM, German Gutierrez
> > <gu...@gmail.com>wrote:
> >
> > > Hello Everyone,
> > >
> > > I vote for in favor.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > German A. Gutierrez
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > All-
> > > >
> > > > Please explicitly vote in favor or against changing the java
> > > > dependency to >=1.7.
> > > >
> > > > Parsing vague "may cause..." or "might be..." concerns throughout the
> > > > text of the thread is tedious, and does not help me know what the
> > > > consensus of the group is, so we can move forward. If there's a
> > > > specific issue that is informing your vote, that's great, feel free
> to
> > > > state it, but I don't want this issue to drag out for the duration of
> > > > the the Accumulo 1.6.0 development cycle because people are reluctant
> > > > to come to a concrete opinion.
> > > >
> > > > If it fails a vote, we'll revisit for Accumulo 1.7.0.
> > > >
> > > > I'm personally in favor of the change (+1), but it's not a big deal
> to
> > > > me. I just want a concrete resolution.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Christopher L Tubbs II
> > > > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 10:51 AM, John Vines <vi...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > > > I have also heard mulling about issues with the way Kerberos
> > > > authentication
> > > > > behaves with JDK1.7 for hadoop. This may also have implications on
> > the
> > > > > Accumulo implementation as well.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 10:37 PM, Ben Popp <be...@sqrrl.com> wrote:
> > > > >> <snip>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > CDH4 claims JDK 1.6 and 1.7 support:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.cloudera.com/content/cloudera-content/cloudera-docs/CDH4/latest/CDH4-Requirements-and-Supported-Versions/cdhrsv_topic_3.html
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > <snip>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> CDH4 comes with some additional caveats about 1.7:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.cloudera.com/content/cloudera-content/cloudera-docs/CDH4/latest/CDH4-Release-Notes/cdh4rn_topic_2_2.html?scroll=concept_c1n_bln_tj_unique_1
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The biggest one being the disclaimer about 1.7 compiled code.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> --
> > > > >> Sean
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] JDK 1.7 - Switch for Accumulo 1.6.0
Posted by Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>.
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 9:52 AM, David Medinets <da...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Who is voting - the accumulo community, the PMC members, or some other
> subset of people?
>
>
Good question. I had presumed it was "community welcome to vote, only
committers binding."
The governance doc[1] says "everyone has one vote" without really saying
who "everyone" is. Since it falls back to the main Apache voting
description for details[2], I would guess that makes "everyone" the PMC
members.
This points out something worth having the PMC members discussing soon:
continued lack of bylaws.
[1]: http://accumulo.apache.org/governance/voting.html
[2]: http://apache.org/foundation/voting.html
--
Sean
Re: [VOTE] JDK 1.7 - Switch for Accumulo 1.6.0
Posted by David Medinets <da...@gmail.com>.
Who is voting - the accumulo community, the PMC members, or some other
subset of people?
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 11:51 PM, David Lyle <dl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> -1 Prefer to stay on java 1.6 until pulled by features or eol.
>
> -D...
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 10:53 PM, German Gutierrez
> <gu...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > Hello Everyone,
> >
> > I vote for in favor.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > German A. Gutierrez
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > All-
> > >
> > > Please explicitly vote in favor or against changing the java
> > > dependency to >=1.7.
> > >
> > > Parsing vague "may cause..." or "might be..." concerns throughout the
> > > text of the thread is tedious, and does not help me know what the
> > > consensus of the group is, so we can move forward. If there's a
> > > specific issue that is informing your vote, that's great, feel free to
> > > state it, but I don't want this issue to drag out for the duration of
> > > the the Accumulo 1.6.0 development cycle because people are reluctant
> > > to come to a concrete opinion.
> > >
> > > If it fails a vote, we'll revisit for Accumulo 1.7.0.
> > >
> > > I'm personally in favor of the change (+1), but it's not a big deal to
> > > me. I just want a concrete resolution.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Christopher L Tubbs II
> > > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 10:51 AM, John Vines <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > I have also heard mulling about issues with the way Kerberos
> > > authentication
> > > > behaves with JDK1.7 for hadoop. This may also have implications on
> the
> > > > Accumulo implementation as well.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 10:37 PM, Ben Popp <be...@sqrrl.com> wrote:
> > > >> <snip>
> > > >>
> > > >> > CDH4 claims JDK 1.6 and 1.7 support:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> http://www.cloudera.com/content/cloudera-content/cloudera-docs/CDH4/latest/CDH4-Requirements-and-Supported-Versions/cdhrsv_topic_3.html
> > > >> >
> > > >> > <snip>
> > > >>
> > > >> CDH4 comes with some additional caveats about 1.7:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> http://www.cloudera.com/content/cloudera-content/cloudera-docs/CDH4/latest/CDH4-Release-Notes/cdh4rn_topic_2_2.html?scroll=concept_c1n_bln_tj_unique_1
> > > >>
> > > >> The biggest one being the disclaimer about 1.7 compiled code.
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Sean
> > > >>
> > >
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] JDK 1.7 - Switch for Accumulo 1.6.0
Posted by David Lyle <dl...@gmail.com>.
-1 Prefer to stay on java 1.6 until pulled by features or eol.
-D...
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 10:53 PM, German Gutierrez
<gu...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
>
> I vote for in favor.
>
> Thanks
>
> German A. Gutierrez
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > All-
> >
> > Please explicitly vote in favor or against changing the java
> > dependency to >=1.7.
> >
> > Parsing vague "may cause..." or "might be..." concerns throughout the
> > text of the thread is tedious, and does not help me know what the
> > consensus of the group is, so we can move forward. If there's a
> > specific issue that is informing your vote, that's great, feel free to
> > state it, but I don't want this issue to drag out for the duration of
> > the the Accumulo 1.6.0 development cycle because people are reluctant
> > to come to a concrete opinion.
> >
> > If it fails a vote, we'll revisit for Accumulo 1.7.0.
> >
> > I'm personally in favor of the change (+1), but it's not a big deal to
> > me. I just want a concrete resolution.
> >
> > --
> > Christopher L Tubbs II
> > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 10:51 AM, John Vines <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > I have also heard mulling about issues with the way Kerberos
> > authentication
> > > behaves with JDK1.7 for hadoop. This may also have implications on the
> > > Accumulo implementation as well.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 10:37 PM, Ben Popp <be...@sqrrl.com> wrote:
> > >> <snip>
> > >>
> > >> > CDH4 claims JDK 1.6 and 1.7 support:
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> http://www.cloudera.com/content/cloudera-content/cloudera-docs/CDH4/latest/CDH4-Requirements-and-Supported-Versions/cdhrsv_topic_3.html
> > >> >
> > >> > <snip>
> > >>
> > >> CDH4 comes with some additional caveats about 1.7:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> http://www.cloudera.com/content/cloudera-content/cloudera-docs/CDH4/latest/CDH4-Release-Notes/cdh4rn_topic_2_2.html?scroll=concept_c1n_bln_tj_unique_1
> > >>
> > >> The biggest one being the disclaimer about 1.7 compiled code.
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Sean
> > >>
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] JDK 1.7 - Switch for Accumulo 1.6.0
Posted by German Gutierrez <gu...@gmail.com>.
Hello Everyone,
I vote for in favor.
Thanks
German A. Gutierrez
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
> All-
>
> Please explicitly vote in favor or against changing the java
> dependency to >=1.7.
>
> Parsing vague "may cause..." or "might be..." concerns throughout the
> text of the thread is tedious, and does not help me know what the
> consensus of the group is, so we can move forward. If there's a
> specific issue that is informing your vote, that's great, feel free to
> state it, but I don't want this issue to drag out for the duration of
> the the Accumulo 1.6.0 development cycle because people are reluctant
> to come to a concrete opinion.
>
> If it fails a vote, we'll revisit for Accumulo 1.7.0.
>
> I'm personally in favor of the change (+1), but it's not a big deal to
> me. I just want a concrete resolution.
>
> --
> Christopher L Tubbs II
> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 10:51 AM, John Vines <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
> > I have also heard mulling about issues with the way Kerberos
> authentication
> > behaves with JDK1.7 for hadoop. This may also have implications on the
> > Accumulo implementation as well.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 10:37 PM, Ben Popp <be...@sqrrl.com> wrote:
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> > CDH4 claims JDK 1.6 and 1.7 support:
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> http://www.cloudera.com/content/cloudera-content/cloudera-docs/CDH4/latest/CDH4-Requirements-and-Supported-Versions/cdhrsv_topic_3.html
> >> >
> >> > <snip>
> >>
> >> CDH4 comes with some additional caveats about 1.7:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> http://www.cloudera.com/content/cloudera-content/cloudera-docs/CDH4/latest/CDH4-Release-Notes/cdh4rn_topic_2_2.html?scroll=concept_c1n_bln_tj_unique_1
> >>
> >> The biggest one being the disclaimer about 1.7 compiled code.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Sean
> >>
>
Re: [VOTE] JDK 1.7 - Switch for Accumulo 1.6.0
Posted by Christopher <ct...@apache.org>.
All-
Please explicitly vote in favor or against changing the java
dependency to >=1.7.
Parsing vague "may cause..." or "might be..." concerns throughout the
text of the thread is tedious, and does not help me know what the
consensus of the group is, so we can move forward. If there's a
specific issue that is informing your vote, that's great, feel free to
state it, but I don't want this issue to drag out for the duration of
the the Accumulo 1.6.0 development cycle because people are reluctant
to come to a concrete opinion.
If it fails a vote, we'll revisit for Accumulo 1.7.0.
I'm personally in favor of the change (+1), but it's not a big deal to
me. I just want a concrete resolution.
--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 10:51 AM, John Vines <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
> I have also heard mulling about issues with the way Kerberos authentication
> behaves with JDK1.7 for hadoop. This may also have implications on the
> Accumulo implementation as well.
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 10:37 PM, Ben Popp <be...@sqrrl.com> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>> > CDH4 claims JDK 1.6 and 1.7 support:
>> >
>> >
>> http://www.cloudera.com/content/cloudera-content/cloudera-docs/CDH4/latest/CDH4-Requirements-and-Supported-Versions/cdhrsv_topic_3.html
>> >
>> > <snip>
>>
>> CDH4 comes with some additional caveats about 1.7:
>>
>>
>> http://www.cloudera.com/content/cloudera-content/cloudera-docs/CDH4/latest/CDH4-Release-Notes/cdh4rn_topic_2_2.html?scroll=concept_c1n_bln_tj_unique_1
>>
>> The biggest one being the disclaimer about 1.7 compiled code.
>>
>> --
>> Sean
>>
Re: [VOTE] JDK 1.7 - Switch for Accumulo 1.6.0
Posted by John Vines <vi...@apache.org>.
I have also heard mulling about issues with the way Kerberos authentication
behaves with JDK1.7 for hadoop. This may also have implications on the
Accumulo implementation as well.
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 10:37 PM, Ben Popp <be...@sqrrl.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > CDH4 claims JDK 1.6 and 1.7 support:
> >
> >
> http://www.cloudera.com/content/cloudera-content/cloudera-docs/CDH4/latest/CDH4-Requirements-and-Supported-Versions/cdhrsv_topic_3.html
> >
> > <snip>
>
> CDH4 comes with some additional caveats about 1.7:
>
>
> http://www.cloudera.com/content/cloudera-content/cloudera-docs/CDH4/latest/CDH4-Release-Notes/cdh4rn_topic_2_2.html?scroll=concept_c1n_bln_tj_unique_1
>
> The biggest one being the disclaimer about 1.7 compiled code.
>
> --
> Sean
>
Re: [VOTE] JDK 1.7 - Switch for Accumulo 1.6.0
Posted by Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 10:37 PM, Ben Popp <be...@sqrrl.com> wrote:
<snip>
> CDH4 claims JDK 1.6 and 1.7 support:
>
> http://www.cloudera.com/content/cloudera-content/cloudera-docs/CDH4/latest/CDH4-Requirements-and-Supported-Versions/cdhrsv_topic_3.html
>
> <snip>
CDH4 comes with some additional caveats about 1.7:
http://www.cloudera.com/content/cloudera-content/cloudera-docs/CDH4/latest/CDH4-Release-Notes/cdh4rn_topic_2_2.html?scroll=concept_c1n_bln_tj_unique_1
The biggest one being the disclaimer about 1.7 compiled code.
--
Sean
Re: [VOTE] JDK 1.7 - Switch for Accumulo 1.6.0
Posted by Ben Popp <be...@sqrrl.com>.
Is JDK 1.7 is supported in the common Hadoop distros?
Hortonworks doc doesn't seem to list a version. A Hortonworks forum page
claims JDK 1.7 isn't supported as of April 2013:
http://hortonworks.com/community/forums/topic/jdk-7/
CDH4 claims JDK 1.6 and 1.7 support:
http://www.cloudera.com/content/cloudera-content/cloudera-docs/CDH4/latest/CDH4-Requirements-and-Supported-Versions/cdhrsv_topic_3.html
CDH3 requires JDK 1.6:
http://www.cloudera.com/content/cloudera-content/cloudera-docs/CDH3/CDH3u6/CDH3-Installation-Guide/cdh3ig_topic_24.html
Re: [VOTE] JDK 1.7 - Switch for Accumulo 1.6.0
Posted by Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com>.
Not necessarily. There is always the difference in implementation
against the JDK implementation.
The Oracle site Sean linked actually goes through a bunch (all?) of
changes. The TreeMap change has already bit me once.
On 06/03/2013 08:54 PM, Dave Marion wrote:
> Looks like Java 6 compiled iterators should work without change.
RE: [VOTE] JDK 1.7 - Switch for Accumulo 1.6.0
Posted by Dave Marion <dl...@comcast.net>.
+1 with reservations. This seems like a big API change, not because our dependency changes, but doesn't it force all consumers to change to Java 7 as well if new language features are used in the client? Looks like Java 6 compiled iterators should work without change.
I wonder if would make sense to:
- move client to its own module (out of core),
- build a Java 6 distribution of the client in addition to the Java 7 release, and
- refrain from using Java 7 features in the client until a 2.0 release
-----Original Message-----
From: Sean Busbey [mailto:busbey@cloudera.com]
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 7:05 PM
To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] JDK 1.7 - Switch for Accumulo 1.6.0
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <snip>
Also, some quick searching leads me to believe that 1.6 bytecode will run
> on a 1.7 JVM, but not vice versa. Does anyone know if this is the
> case? I apologize if I'm bringing up an already-discussed subject.
> <snip>
>
Just to confirm, the JDK7 compatibility guide says JDK7 compiled code won't work on a Java 6 VM[1]:
> The class file version for Java SE 7 is 51, as per the JVM
> Specification,
because of the invokedynamic byte code
> introduced by JSR 292. Version 51 class files produced by the Java SE
> 7
compiler cannot be used in Java SE 6.
[1]:
http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/compatibility-417013.html#binary
--
Sean
Re: [VOTE] JDK 1.7 - Switch for Accumulo 1.6.0
Posted by Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <snip>
Also, some quick searching leads me to believe that 1.6 bytecode will run
> on a 1.7 JVM, but not vice versa. Does anyone know if this is the case? I
> apologize if I'm bringing up an already-discussed subject.
> <snip>
>
Just to confirm, the JDK7 compatibility guide says JDK7 compiled code won't
work on a Java 6 VM[1]:
> The class file version for Java SE 7 is 51, as per the JVM Specification,
because of the invokedynamic byte code
> introduced by JSR 292. Version 51 class files produced by the Java SE 7
compiler cannot be used in Java SE 6.
[1]:
http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/compatibility-417013.html#binary
--
Sean
Re: [VOTE] JDK 1.7 - Switch for Accumulo 1.6.0
Posted by Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com>.
Let me clarify myself a bit, as I just had a chat session with Keith and
Christopher...
The concern I have is that moving to Java1.7 (jdk or jre), the second
bullet from below, is that this may force a departure from the typical
lifecycle for Accumulo 1.5. If the collective "we" are happy with the
potential to support Accumulo 1.5 and backport Accumulo 1.6
fixes/features to 1.5 as necessary for a period longer than we normally
do this, that's fine.
As there is an unquantifiable risk that is inherit to Java 1.7 (as any
new software), this is a real possibility. I haven't decided one way or
the other, but I wanted to make sure that the proponents of Java1.7 are
aware of such an impact.
On 6/3/13 5:04 PM, Josh Elser wrote:
> Can you clarify what you mean?
>
> - I would be ok with making JDK 1.7 the "default" for Accumulo 1.6.0. I
> think this mostly boils down to the JDK which we would be performing our
> testing with.
> - I don't want to alienate JDK/JRE 1.6 users from using Accumulo 1.6.0,
> so I am not in favor of removing the ability to run Accumulo 1.6.0 on
> JRE 1.6.
>
> I think the latter is acceptable to me as long as we document/advertise
> how one could build Java 1.6 Accumulo 1.6.0 artifacts, if we choose not
> to publish them ourselves.
>
> Also, some quick searching leads me to believe that 1.6 bytecode will
> run on a 1.7 JVM, but not vice versa. Does anyone know if this is the
> case? I apologize if I'm bringing up an already-discussed subject.
>
> On 6/3/13 4:51 PM, Christopher wrote:
>> Given all the previous discussions about this, and assuming all points
>> and counterpoints have already been sufficiently enumerated, I'd like
>> to put it to a vote, explicitly:
>>
>> Should we switch to JDK 1.7 for Accumulo 1.6.0, to take advantage of
>> newer features (ACCUMULO-905), or should we continue to require that
>> Accumulo 1.6.0 run on JRE 1.6?
>>
>> --
>> Christopher L Tubbs II
>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>>
Re: [VOTE] JDK 1.7 - Switch for Accumulo 1.6.0
Posted by Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com>.
Can you clarify what you mean?
- I would be ok with making JDK 1.7 the "default" for Accumulo 1.6.0. I
think this mostly boils down to the JDK which we would be performing our
testing with.
- I don't want to alienate JDK/JRE 1.6 users from using Accumulo 1.6.0,
so I am not in favor of removing the ability to run Accumulo 1.6.0 on
JRE 1.6.
I think the latter is acceptable to me as long as we document/advertise
how one could build Java 1.6 Accumulo 1.6.0 artifacts, if we choose not
to publish them ourselves.
Also, some quick searching leads me to believe that 1.6 bytecode will
run on a 1.7 JVM, but not vice versa. Does anyone know if this is the
case? I apologize if I'm bringing up an already-discussed subject.
On 6/3/13 4:51 PM, Christopher wrote:
> Given all the previous discussions about this, and assuming all points
> and counterpoints have already been sufficiently enumerated, I'd like
> to put it to a vote, explicitly:
>
> Should we switch to JDK 1.7 for Accumulo 1.6.0, to take advantage of
> newer features (ACCUMULO-905), or should we continue to require that
> Accumulo 1.6.0 run on JRE 1.6?
>
> --
> Christopher L Tubbs II
> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>
Re: [VOTE] JDK 1.7 - Switch for Accumulo 1.6.0
Posted by Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>.
Dropping JDK6 support is a pretty big deal.
Is it worth making it a 2.0.0 feature instead of 1.6.0?
If not, what would be the distinction for a 2.0.0?
In the mean time we could explicitly change testing to be on JDK7 instead
of JDK6 as an initial step.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
> Given all the previous discussions about this, and assuming all points
> and counterpoints have already been sufficiently enumerated, I'd like
> to put it to a vote, explicitly:
>
> Should we switch to JDK 1.7 for Accumulo 1.6.0, to take advantage of
> newer features (ACCUMULO-905), or should we continue to require that
> Accumulo 1.6.0 run on JRE 1.6?
>
> --
> Christopher L Tubbs II
> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>
--
Sean Busbey
Solutions Architect
Cloudera, Inc.
Phone: MAN-VS-BEARD