On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 21:04 Joseph Lynch <joe.e.ly...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Isn't the JDK we build with when publishing to maven somewhat of a public > interface due to cassandra-all library usage? I agree that we probably just > need to clearly document what JVMs we test a release on which is a good > signal for what we think will work at runtime (and this may be a much newer > JVM than we built with). > For better or worse the community has largely treated cassandra-all use (outside of official projects like cassandra-analytics) as “at your own risk”. > Apologies I didn't intend to change what we were voting on, I was just > trying to understand if we were voting on the original text or the original > text *plus* the "we don't break things and discuss breakage before > breaking apis" (which I still can't find on the wiki, but I am likely just > bad at search). > > I do agree version and feature support is perhaps a separate topic from > killing the minor (which seems unambiguously good). > > -Joey > > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 7:47 PM Josh McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> Pragmatically, I believe our in-jvm upgrade dtests require the 2 versions >> of C* you're testing to both support running on (and probably right now >> building on) a shared JDK version. So for instance, if we had: >> >> - Release 21.0.0: JDK30, JDK31 >> - Release 22.0.0: JDK35, JDK40 >> >> We wouldn't be able to test an upgrade from 21 to 22. Arguably we could >> *build* on an older supported version and run both on the newer, but at >> least right now I think that's our restriction. There's tension here if our >> release cadence and LTS JDK's intersect badly, but JDK LTS is infrequent >> enough relative to our releases that I think we're potentially getting >> worked up about a non-issue here. >> >> Since the JDK isn't an API and we've already discussed and have some >> measure of consensus in the past (I thought; haven't dug that up now due to >> shortage of time), I think we can and should formalize that separately from >> this vote thread. >> >> On Wed, Apr 23, 2025, at 6:31 PM, David Capwell wrote: >> >> Also, I thought we had separate discussion about them - that we want to >> keep up possibly with the last two LTS versions. >> >> >> This is what I remember as well. 6.0 would support 17/21 as thats the >> latest, if 7.0 is out before 25, then 7.0 would be 17/21, else it would be >> 21/25 >> >> On Apr 23, 2025, at 3:11 PM, Ekaterina Dimitrova <e.dimitr...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> I should say that I also haven’t thought of JDK versions when I voted >> here. Also, I thought we had separate discussion about them - that we want >> to keep up possibly with the last two LTS versions. Currently we do not >> have vision on when will be the next release date, so I cannot personally >> align JDK LTS versions to our versioning. Also, depends on people >> availability and testing resources when and what versions we will maintain >> our builds with. (And when and what Cassandra releases we will have, too) >> >> Regarding the - “do not change what we vote for in the middle of the >> vote” - I agree, this is not the way to do it. But honestly I did not >> perceive this voting as such a case. I also knew about the agreement that >> any breaking changes will be discussed on the dev mailing list prior >> removal and we try to be backward compatible as much as possible. >> >> On Wed, 23 Apr 2025 at 18:02, Jeremiah Jordan <jerem...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> >> > The JVM version also isn’t a feature to deprecate, technically. >> I agree with this. I think the JVM version the server runs under and how >> we cycle those is a separate discussion from feature deprecation. >> >> There can and has been some overlap there that would need to be handled >> on a case by case basis (when a new JVM removed something that we did not >> have a good way to keep doing without it, talking about you scripting >> runtime based UDFs), but in general I don’t think switching JVMs is the >> same as feature removal/deprecation. >> >> -Jeremiah >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 4:48 PM Jordan West <jw...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> I agree with Jon that I’m now a bit confused on part of what I voted for. >> It feels like there is more discussion to be had here. Or we need to split >> it into two votes if we want to make progress on the part where there is >> consensus and revisit where there is not. >> >> Regarding JVM version what I’ve mostly seen as reasons against forcing a >> JVM upgrade with a C* upgrade is risk tolerance. Folks bit by past upgrades >> have a tendency to want to limit as many variables as possible. From a >> technical perspective I’m not sure that’s justified tbh but having been one >> of the folks wanting to reduce variables and still getting bit by upgrades >> I understand it. The JVM version also isn’t a feature to deprecate, >> technically. And having made the decision once to hold off on upgrading the >> JVM and regretting it I too would like to see the project try to keep pace >> with JVM releases instead of being on older LTS or unsupported versions. >> >> >> Jordan >> >> On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 13:49 Jon Haddad <j...@rustyrazorblade.com> wrote: >> >> > If 5.0 supports 17, then 7.0 should too, if we are to say we support >> 5.0 to 7.0 upgrades. >> >> I have to disagree with this. I don't see a good reason have a tight >> coupling of JVM versions to C* versions, and I also don't see a good reason >> to overlap outside of CI. Even on CI, the reasoning is a bit weak, Linux >> distros have supported multiple JDK versions for at least a decade >> (update-java-alternatives on Ubuntu and alternatives on RedHat). >> >> I've heard several folks explain their reasoning for overlap in JVM >> versions, and it just doesn't resonate with me when weighed against the >> downsides of being anchored to the limitations imposed by supporting old >> JVM versions. >> >> I don't want this to come back and bite us later - so unless we're >> exempting the JVM version from this upgrade requirement, I'm changing my >> vote to -1. >> >> Furthermore, really shouldn't be changing the terms of the thing we're >> voting on mid-vote. This feels really weird to me. Anyone who cast a vote >> previously may not be keeping up with the ML on a daily basis and it's not >> fair to impose changes on them. People should be aware of what they're >> voting for and not be surprised when the VOTE is closed. >> >> Jon >> >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 1:04 PM Mick Semb Wever <m...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> . >> >> >> This reads to me that Java 17 would need to be deprecated now, continue >> to be deprecated in 6.0 (at least one major in deprecated), then removed in >> 7.0. >> >> >> >> This is technically true. But I don't think we need to be explicitly >> deprecating jdk versions. Users are generally aware of Java's LTS cycle, >> and we can document this separately. >> >> Where we are bound is that our upgrade tests require an overlapping >> common jdk. So we can only test upgrades that support a common jdk. And >> 🥁 IMHO, we should not be saying we recommend/support upgrades that we >> don't test (regardless if not having broken compatibility means we think >> untested upgrade paths would still work). If 5.0 supports 17, then 7.0 >> should too, if we are to say we support 5.0 to 7.0 upgrades. >> >> >> >>
