On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 1:09 AM, Jörg Schaible < joerg.schai...@bpm-inspire.com> wrote:
> Hi Simon, > > Simon Spero wrote: > > > Compress HEAD is tested against the equivalent of RC. The main issues > were > > with tests; some types of mocking (especially of concrete classes) don't > > work. This might have been fixed by now. > > I believe that the latest jacoco is 9 compatible. > > > > [The biggest problem was caused by a bug in the zip code handling a > > particular kind of timestamp; massive changes to the jdk implementation > of > > zip caused tests that had been passing (but shouldn't have) to fail > > properly.] > > > > NOTE: > > > > Adding a Module name manifest header asserts that the code is tested > > against Java 9. This is documented in the minutes of the armistice talks. > > > > jigsaw modules are pretty useless for most of Commons (consumers pretty > > much have to shade dependencies). [ subliminal whisper about benefits of > > having correct OSGI headers] > > OK, that means we should at least test those releases that contain a Module > name now and silently assume, that the other stuff is not necessarily > compatible. Do we have an overview, which components were released with > such > a name? > > Cheers, > Jörg > > BWT: I am also not convinced by the benefits of Java 9 looking at the > module > system or the multi-version jars. I fear they will rather harm the Java > ecosystem. > Very sad indeed. These are all "features" that break applications left and right. Gary > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > >
