Minimum version of JDK for Subversion 1.10 (was Re: JDK 10 removal of javah)

[James McCoy <ja...@jamessan.com>]

On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 09:46:41AM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> Elsewhere in this discussion thread it was suggested to raise the
> minimum JDK version requirement to Java 1.8.
> Your statement "please keep backward compatibility with older JDKs"
> could mean anything between "please leave everything as it is now" to
> "bumping the minimum requirement to Java 1.8 is absolutely fine with me".
> 
> This requirement would be introduced for Subversion 1.11.
> Can you explain which versions of OS X / JDK you expect to support when
> Subversion 1.11 will be released in probably 2 to 3 years from now?

No one would be able to build the stable release of Subversion with JDK
10 for 2 to 3 years?

Supporting both pre-8 and post-8 JDKs wouldn't be trivial.  I've been
working under the assumption that we can bump up to JDK 8 and backport
that change to 1.10.

If that's not going to be the case, should my current work still go to
trunk?  Then someone can find the time to adapt things to also work with
pre-8 JDK?

Cheers,
-- 
James
GPG Key: 4096R/91BF BF4D 6956 BD5D F7B7  2D23 DFE6 91AE 331B A3DB

Re: Minimum version of JDK for Subversion 1.10 (was Re: JDK 10 removal of javah)

[Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org>]

On 18.05.2018 14:40, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 02:36:06PM +0200, Branko Čibej wrote:
>> On 18.05.2018 14:34, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 08:22:46AM -0400, James McCoy wrote:
>>>> On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 09:46:41AM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>>>>> Elsewhere in this discussion thread it was suggested to raise the
>>>>> minimum JDK version requirement to Java 1.8.
>>>>> Your statement "please keep backward compatibility with older JDKs"
>>>>> could mean anything between "please leave everything as it is now" to
>>>>> "bumping the minimum requirement to Java 1.8 is absolutely fine with me".
>>>>>
>>>>> This requirement would be introduced for Subversion 1.11.
>>>>> Can you explain which versions of OS X / JDK you expect to support when
>>>>> Subversion 1.11 will be released in probably 2 to 3 years from now?
>>>> No one would be able to build the stable release of Subversion with JDK
>>>> 10 for 2 to 3 years?
>>>>
>>>> Supporting both pre-8 and post-8 JDKs wouldn't be trivial.  I've been
>>>> working under the assumption that we can bump up to JDK 8 and backport
>>>> that change to 1.10.
>>>>
>>>> If that's not going to be the case, should my current work still go to
>>>> trunk?  Then someone can find the time to adapt things to also work with
>>>> pre-8 JDK?
>>> I think you should aim to proceed with your plan as it was.
>>> If anyone has strong objections to this, they should be constructive and
>>> try to provide an alternative solution without pushing an additional
>>> burden on you.
>> Given that Java 6 and 7 are obsolete ... I think it won't hurt to make
>> Java 8 the oldest supported version on the 1.10.x branch.
>> -- Brane
> Yes, I agree.
>
> Sorry for confusing the matter by mentioning 1.11.
> I was just responding to the vaguely worded request from Syntevo and
> I hadn't read the context of this entire discussion thread yet.
>
> We would normally not change minimum dependency versions within a
> stable release branch but this looks like a case where we can make
> a reasonable exception to this rule.

Java 8 is the earliest available for Mac OS from Oracle, unless you
really, really try hard to find Apple's Java 6 installer — which is only
needed for running some seriously obsolete software. The other platforms
where requiring Java 8 /might/ be a problem is the infamous RHEL, which
tends to be years behind the times. However, they have ancient
Subversion as well, so ... pooh.

-- Brane

Re: Minimum version of JDK for Subversion 1.10 (was Re: JDK 10 removal of javah)

[Stefan Sperling <st...@elego.de>]

On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 02:36:06PM +0200, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 18.05.2018 14:34, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> > On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 08:22:46AM -0400, James McCoy wrote:
> >> On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 09:46:41AM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> >>> Elsewhere in this discussion thread it was suggested to raise the
> >>> minimum JDK version requirement to Java 1.8.
> >>> Your statement "please keep backward compatibility with older JDKs"
> >>> could mean anything between "please leave everything as it is now" to
> >>> "bumping the minimum requirement to Java 1.8 is absolutely fine with me".
> >>>
> >>> This requirement would be introduced for Subversion 1.11.
> >>> Can you explain which versions of OS X / JDK you expect to support when
> >>> Subversion 1.11 will be released in probably 2 to 3 years from now?
> >> No one would be able to build the stable release of Subversion with JDK
> >> 10 for 2 to 3 years?
> >>
> >> Supporting both pre-8 and post-8 JDKs wouldn't be trivial.  I've been
> >> working under the assumption that we can bump up to JDK 8 and backport
> >> that change to 1.10.
> >>
> >> If that's not going to be the case, should my current work still go to
> >> trunk?  Then someone can find the time to adapt things to also work with
> >> pre-8 JDK?
> > I think you should aim to proceed with your plan as it was.
> > If anyone has strong objections to this, they should be constructive and
> > try to provide an alternative solution without pushing an additional
> > burden on you.
> 
> Given that Java 6 and 7 are obsolete ... I think it won't hurt to make
> Java 8 the oldest supported version on the 1.10.x branch.
> -- Brane

Yes, I agree.

Sorry for confusing the matter by mentioning 1.11.
I was just responding to the vaguely worded request from Syntevo and
I hadn't read the context of this entire discussion thread yet.

We would normally not change minimum dependency versions within a
stable release branch but this looks like a case where we can make
a reasonable exception to this rule.

Re: Minimum version of JDK for Subversion 1.10 (was Re: JDK 10 removal of javah)

[Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org>]

On 18.05.2018 14:34, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 08:22:46AM -0400, James McCoy wrote:
>> On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 09:46:41AM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>>> Elsewhere in this discussion thread it was suggested to raise the
>>> minimum JDK version requirement to Java 1.8.
>>> Your statement "please keep backward compatibility with older JDKs"
>>> could mean anything between "please leave everything as it is now" to
>>> "bumping the minimum requirement to Java 1.8 is absolutely fine with me".
>>>
>>> This requirement would be introduced for Subversion 1.11.
>>> Can you explain which versions of OS X / JDK you expect to support when
>>> Subversion 1.11 will be released in probably 2 to 3 years from now?
>> No one would be able to build the stable release of Subversion with JDK
>> 10 for 2 to 3 years?
>>
>> Supporting both pre-8 and post-8 JDKs wouldn't be trivial.  I've been
>> working under the assumption that we can bump up to JDK 8 and backport
>> that change to 1.10.
>>
>> If that's not going to be the case, should my current work still go to
>> trunk?  Then someone can find the time to adapt things to also work with
>> pre-8 JDK?
> I think you should aim to proceed with your plan as it was.
> If anyone has strong objections to this, they should be constructive and
> try to provide an alternative solution without pushing an additional
> burden on you.

Given that Java 6 and 7 are obsolete ... I think it won't hurt to make
Java 8 the oldest supported version on the 1.10.x branch.

-- Brane

Re: Minimum version of JDK for Subversion 1.10 (was Re: JDK 10 removal of javah)

[Stefan Sperling <st...@elego.de>]

On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 08:22:46AM -0400, James McCoy wrote:
> On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 09:46:41AM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> > Elsewhere in this discussion thread it was suggested to raise the
> > minimum JDK version requirement to Java 1.8.
> > Your statement "please keep backward compatibility with older JDKs"
> > could mean anything between "please leave everything as it is now" to
> > "bumping the minimum requirement to Java 1.8 is absolutely fine with me".
> > 
> > This requirement would be introduced for Subversion 1.11.
> > Can you explain which versions of OS X / JDK you expect to support when
> > Subversion 1.11 will be released in probably 2 to 3 years from now?
> 
> No one would be able to build the stable release of Subversion with JDK
> 10 for 2 to 3 years?
> 
> Supporting both pre-8 and post-8 JDKs wouldn't be trivial.  I've been
> working under the assumption that we can bump up to JDK 8 and backport
> that change to 1.10.
> 
> If that's not going to be the case, should my current work still go to
> trunk?  Then someone can find the time to adapt things to also work with
> pre-8 JDK?

I think you should aim to proceed with your plan as it was.
If anyone has strong objections to this, they should be constructive and
try to provide an alternative solution without pushing an additional
burden on you.