I think we should start getting automated testing to use java 11 in 4.0, but that stability on 4.0 should not be a blocker for 4.0. Mick is doing a lot of work to get builds running with java 11 (see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-15809) and a lot more work is needed to get java 11 on-par with java 8 in CI.
We also lack a lot of longer running tests in CI, so as the testing epics start getting fleshed out, I hope we can make better use of java 11 earlier rather than adding after. On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 9:56 AM Jon Haddad <j...@jonhaddad.com> wrote: > My goal here was to collect information, specifically around what people's > needs are and what people are testing. Some teams have a mandate they need > to move to Java 11, Python 3, etc. Some just want to take advantage of > features like low overhead heap profiling [1]. I don't have the visibility > that I used to at TLP, but I do remember there were quite a few teams out > there looking to move to JDK 11. > > My original email didn't take a position on whether or not we should remove > the experimental flag, I don't know if we should. I'm trying to figure it > out. If we do, then there's some issues we have to address, like our CI as > Josh pointed out. > > As a user, if I were to download a brand new release of some software that > didn't support the latest stable JDK 2 years after it was released, I'd be > a bit worried, and I think it would reflect poorly on the project. > > Anyways, the TL;DR is that if people are doing large scale testing of 4.0 > with Java 11 with the intent of putting it in production (See Jon > Meredith's email), then it's a matter of determining what bar we need to > cross in order to say JDK 11 support isn't experimental anymore. > > [1] https://bugs.java.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=JDK-8171119 > > > On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 6:02 AM Jeff Jirsa <jji...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Zgc > > > > > On Jul 14, 2020, at 2:26 AM, Robert Stupp <sn...@snazy.de> wrote: > > > > > > > > >> On 14. Jul 2020, at 07:33, Jeff Jirsa <jji...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> Perhaps the most notable parts of jdk11 (for cassandra) aren’t even > > prod ready in jdk11 , so what’s the motivation and what does the project > > gain from revisiting the experimental designation on jdk11? > > > > > > Can you elaborate on what’s not even prod ready in Java 11? > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > > > > >
