I read Mark Reinhold's blog [1] and overall like this change to release cadence. It introduces 3-year LTS releases along with the 6-month feature release cadence.
We'd probably stick with the LTS releases. The blog says they only plan to support each LTS for 3 years though. I'd like this to instead be 6 years (or at least more than 3), since there needs to be a period of overlapping LTS support for migration. Do we have any pull with the JCP? [1] https://mreinhold.org/blog/forward-faster On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 8:16 AM, Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com> wrote: > ugh. this will be rough for cross-jdk compatibility, unless they update the > target jre options of javac to support more than the last 2 major versions. > > > Question: Does GPL licensing of the JDK/JVM affect us negatively? > > Nope. all the openjdk bits we rely on were already going to be under the > GPLv2 with CE, since the alternative is the Oracle Binary Code License[1], > which is also in Cat-X[2] but for not being an Open Source license. In any > case things built for Java are covered under the "platform" exception to > the Cat-X designation[3], since depending Java is considered unavoidable > for a java project. > > > > [1]: http://www.jcp.org/aboutJava/communityprocess/licenses/SE7_RIv2.doc > [2]: http://apache.org/legal/resolved#category-x as "BCL" > [3]: http://apache.org/legal/resolved#platform > > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 9:29 AM, larry mccay <lmc...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Interesting. > > Thanks for sharing this, Allen. > > > > Question: Does GPL licensing of the JDK/JVM affect us negatively? > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Allen Wittenauer < > > a...@effectivemachines.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > > > > > > From: "Rory O'Donnell" <rory.odonn...@oracle.com> > > > > Subject: Moving Java Forward Faster > > > > Date: September 7, 2017 at 2:12:45 AM PDT > > > > To: "strub...@yahoo.de >> Mark Struberg" <strub...@yahoo.de> > > > > Cc: rory.odonn...@oracle.com, abdul.kolarku...@oracle.com, > > > balchandra.vai...@oracle.com, dalibor.to...@oracle.com, > > bui...@apache.org > > > > Reply-To: bui...@apache.org > > > > > > > > Hi Mark & Gavin, > > > > > > > > Oracle is proposing a rapid release model for Java SE going-forward. > > > > > > > > The high points are highlighted below, details of the changes can be > > > found on Mark Reinhold’s blog [1] , OpenJDK discussion email list [2]. > > > > > > > > Under the proposed release model, after JDK 9, we will adopt a > strict, > > > time-based model with a new major release every six months, update > > releases > > > every quarter, and a long-term support release every three years. > > > > > > > > The new JDK Project will run a bit differently than the past "JDK $N" > > > Projects: > > > > > > > > - The main development line will always be open but fixes, > > enhancements, > > > and features will be merged only when they're nearly finished. The main > > > line will be Feature Complete [3] at all times. > > > > > > > > - We'll continue to use the JEP Process [4] for new features and > other > > > significant changes. The bar to target a JEP to a specific release > will, > > > however, be higher since the work must be Feature Complete in order to > go > > > in. Owners of large or risky features will be strongly encouraged to > > split > > > such features up into smaller and safer parts, to integrate earlier in > > the > > > release cycle, and to publish separate lines of early-access builds > prior > > > to integration. > > > > > > > > The JDK Updates Project will run in much the same way as the past > "JDK > > > $N" Updates Projects, though update releases will be strictly limited > to > > > fixes of security issues, regressions, and bugs in newer features. > > > > > > > > Related to this proposal, we intend to make a few changes in what we > > do: > > > > > > > > - Starting with JDK 9 we'll ship OpenJDK builds under the GPL [5], to > > > make it easier for developers to deploy Java applications to cloud > > > environments. We'll initially publish OpenJDK builds for Linux/x64, > > > followed later by builds for macOS/x64 and Windows/x64. > > > > > > > > - We'll continue to ship proprietary "Oracle JDK" builds, which > include > > > "commercial features" [6] such as Java Flight Recorder and Mission > > Control > > > [7], under a click-through binary-code license [8]. Oracle will > continue > > to > > > offer paid support for these builds. > > > > > > > > - After JDK 9 we'll open-source the commercial features in order to > > make > > > the OpenJDK builds more attractive to developers and to reduce the > > > differences between those builds and the Oracle JDK. This will take > some > > > time, but the ultimate goal is to make OpenJDK and Oracle JDK builds > > > completely interchangeable. > > > > > > > > - Finally, for the long term we'll work with other OpenJDK > contributors > > > to establish an open build-and-test infrastructure. This will make it > > > easier to publish early-access builds for features in development, and > > > eventually make it possible for the OpenJDK Community itself to publish > > > authoritative builds of the JDK. > > > > > > > > Questions , comments, feedback to OpenJDK discuss mailing list [2] > > > > > > > > Rgds,Rory > > > > > > > > [1]https://mreinhold.org/blog/forward-faster > > > > [2]http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/discuss/2017- > > > September/004281.html > > > > [3]http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk8/milestones#Feature_Complete > > > > [4]http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/0 > > > > [5]http://openjdk.java.net/legal/gplv2+ce.html > > > > [6]http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/terms/ > > > products/index.html > > > > [7]http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javaseproducts/mission- > > > control/index.html > > > > [8]http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/terms/ > > > license/index.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: common-dev-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org > > > For additional commands, e-mail: common-dev-h...@hadoop.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > busbey >
