Jenkins now requires Java-8 as its base runtime environment on the regular release channel, with its LTS channel moving to Java-8 in a few weeks:
https://jenkins.io/blog/2017/04/10/jenkins-has-upgraded-to-java-8/ That one bit me, as there is a bug updating on older Ubuntu versions that don't carry a Java-8 JDK in their standard repositories so you need to pull in the webupd8 PPA or the openjdk PPA: https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/browse/JENKINS-43629 The statistics that backed the Jenkins decision were interesting, but not necessarily relevant to other production applications: https://jenkins.io/blog/2017/01/17/Jenkins-is-upgrading-to-Java-8/ Cheers, Peter On 1 May 2017 at 02:22, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > Supporting Java 6 is going to continue to become harder and harder to do > with infrastructural upgrades across the board. Recent versions of Gradle > require Java 7 to run, for example, just like Jenkins, even though you can > still use those to compile for Java 6. Ant has finally moved on from the > Java 5 baseline, though IIRC, they jumped straight to Java 8. Considering > how long it was between Maven 3.3.9 and 3.5.0, I'm guessing the discussion > there about the baseline Java version is still ongoing. > > Really, what this is all pointing toward is that the greater Java developer > community is moving on from Java 6, and if we want to continue supporting > Java 6 in projects that otherwise shouldn't need anything newer, we may > need some better tooling or documented standards on how to continue doing > so. If Java 6 just never dies, then I almost think that we'll need to take > a leaf from the Javascript developer community and get some sort of > transpiler to support Java 6 using newer syntax and libraries (which could > be compile-time re-linked to compatibility libraries). > > On 30 April 2017 at 09:55, Gilles <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote: > >> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 15:39:20 +0100, sebb wrote: >> >>> On 30 April 2017 at 15:32, Gilles <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 14:49:56 +0100, sebb wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 29 April 2017 at 19:10, Gilles <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, 29 Apr 2017 09:46:56 -0400, Raymond DeCampo wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please note I wrote an issue concerning this last week or so. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NUMBERS-21 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I noticed when moving code from [math] to [numbers] that [math] >>>>>>> targets >>>>>>> 7. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> As a general rule, this must formally asked on the "dev" ML. >>>>>> [And, we'll take for granted that if no one raises an objection >>>>>> within 72 hours, the proposal is accepted.] >>>>>> >>>>>> I had to make some minor downgrades in the code (use of diamond >>>>>>> operator). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Given that [math] targets Java 7 and [numbers] is based on it, I see >>>>>>> no >>>>>>> reason [numbers] shouldn't target 7 as well. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> That's fine with me; however let's note (for the record) that the >>>>>> last official release of CM (3.6.1) was still Java 5 (five) compatible. >>>>>> I don't think (TBC) that any of the CM codes intended (as of now) for >>>>>> inclusion _requires_ Java 7. >>>>>> >>>>>> Hence my question about the necessity (seems not) or willingness >>>>>> (could well be, if just for the comfort of contributors) to upgrade. >>>>>> >>>>>> Now, concretely, you could make the "downgrades" and the code is >>>>>> now Java 6 compatible. >>>>>> However, as concretely, it is not obvious that we want to loose >>>>>> more time fiddling with Jenkins to make it perform the build of >>>>>> code targeted to old Java. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> IMO it is wrong for Jenkins to dictate the Java compat level of the >>>>> items it builds. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I agree. >>>> >>>> Besides, it is not difficult to do. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Then why doesn't INFRA do it when they perform an upgrade that >>>> breaks what used to work? >>>> >>> >>> Don't ask me, ask them... >>> >> >> I first asked here because I might have missed an announcement >> explaining how to upgrade the config. [I seem to recall having >> done what was required when the issue with Java 6 was first >> mentioned; then it broke again.] >> >> >>> Help welcome, since I must have missed the "easy" part in my >>>> attempts to fix it... >>>> >>> >>> Which job is failing? >>> >> >> I've just seen that you fixed it for "RNG". Thanks! >> I've reviewed the changes and did the same in "Numbers". >> Fixed now! >> >> Thanks, >> Gilles >> >> >> >>> Gilles >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Gilles >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 6:30 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 28 April 2017 at 16:05, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> > If you're going to build for Java 6 using Java 7, then you should >>>>>>>> > really >>>>>>>> > use something like < >>>>>>>> > http://www.mojohaus.org/animal-sniffer/animal-sniffer-maven- >>>>>>>> plugin/> >>>>>>>> > to >>>>>>>> > prevent accidental usage of Java 7. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And/Or actually use Java 6 to compile/test, which is pretty easy to >>>>>>>> do >>>>>>>> using the -Pjava-1.6 profile. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > On 28 April 2017 at 09:51, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >> On 28 April 2017 at 13:01, Gilles <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> >>>>>>>> >> wrote: >>>>>>>> >> > Hi. >>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>> >> > On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 08:42:36 -0700, Gary Gregory wrote: >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> On Apr 27, 2017 8:21 AM, "Gilles" < >>>>>>>> gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 10:10:57 -0500, Matt Sicker wrote: >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>> Choosing Java 8 or 7 for a new component depends on the APIs >>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>> want >>>>>>>> >> to >>>>>>>> >> >>> use for it more so than what's current. >>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> Indeed, the question could be rephrased as: Is there anything >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> loose >>>>>>>> >> >> (for a new component) if we allow the larger API of Java 8? >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> I hear people are still using Java >>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>> >> >>> 6, but I doubt those projects are adapting new libraries or >>>>>>>> upgrading >>>>>>>> >> any >>>>>>>> >> >>> of their dependencies as it is... >>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> That has seemed logical to me for a long time... >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> +1 >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> I say pick the version you think is best. >>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>> >> > At this point, I can't say exactly. >>>>>>>> >> > The current code doesn't seem to need Java APIs beyond 6, but >>>>>>>> >> > other >>>>>>>> >> > utilities yet to be added might benefit. >>>>>>>> >> > The only argument for leaving Java 6 is that we have to go >>>>>>>> through >>>>>>>> >> > hoops with the Jenkins configuration. >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> That is not an argument for upping the Java version >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> > Currently it fails in a way that looks cryptic to me. >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> That's because Jenkins now requires Java 7 to run Maven jobs, >>>>>>>> though >>>>>>>> >> it does not seem to need it for all job types. >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> > So, unless someone can fix it, I'll bump the dependency to Java >>>>>>>> 7. >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> Huh? >>>>>>>> >> Surely you can just tell Jenkins to use Java 7 to build and test? >>>>>>>> >> There's no need for the source to be updated as well (there might >>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>> >> some Javadoc warnings, I suppose, but those can be fixed without >>>>>>>> >> compromising Java 6 compat.) >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> But it's pretty easy to fix so it builds and tests using Java 6 - >>>>>>>> >> which job is it? >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> > Regards, >>>>>>>> >> > Gilles >>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> Gary >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> Regards, >>>>>>>> >> >> Gilles >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> On 27 April 2017 at 09:41, Gilles < >>>>>>>> gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>> >> >>> On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 14:49:01 +0200, Gilles wrote: >>>>>>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>> >> >>>> Hi. >>>>>>>> >> >>>>> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>> The POM indicates: >>>>>>>> >> >>>>> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>> <maven.compiler.source>1.6</maven.compiler.source> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>> <maven.compiler.target>1.6</maven.compiler.target> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>> but also: >>>>>>>> >> >>>>> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>> <commons.release.desc>(requires Java >>>>>>>> 7+)</commons.release.desc> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>> Which is wrong? >>>>>>>> >> >>>>> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>> Also, please not that keeping 1.6 compatibility seems to >>>>>>>> complicate >>>>>>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>> >> >>>> the Jenkins configuration: >>>>>>>> >> >>>> https://builds.apache.org/vie >>>>>>>> w/Apache%20Commons/job/Commons_ >>>>>>>> >> >>>> Numbers/14/console >>>>>>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>> >> >>>> For a new component, shouldn't we just go to Java 8? >>>>>>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>> >> >>>> Gilles >>>>>>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> >> > > > -- > Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
