Your arguments really resonate with me, Ryan… +1 to Java 8 (FWIW I’m using coding in Java 8 these days already)
~ David Smiley Freelance Apache Lucene/Solr Search Consultant/Developer http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 1:39 PM, Ryan Ernst <[email protected]> wrote: > One that is on my mind right now may just barely make it to 1.7 this year. >> > > > >> Thus my desire to see a way to get the pending trunk work to people who >> are not moving to 1.8 any time soon. > > > We should not hold Lucene back because some companies have arcane upgrade > policies. Part of what allows policies like this to continue is the > slowness of the ecosystem to update, both support (we already have this) > and requirement (what is being proposed). As I said in the original > message, we should be ahead of the curve, not the project that is dragging > behind. > > I thought I saw a message go by about a 5x branch the other day, so >> perhaps things are already exactly what I am asking for > > > This is one proposed alternative to "solve all the trunk problems" (bwc > and java8). I think it is a copout (no offense Robert) to avoid forcing an > agreement by the community to move forward. > > Given how long it is likely to be until 6.0, I am not here to argue that >> 6.0 should not require 1.8 > > > But no one knows how long it will be until 5.0 either. Even after 5.0 is > released, whenever that may be, if there are those in the community that > want to stretch life out of the 4x branch on java 7, that is their > prerogative. > > I think the question here is, should trunk be the "blazing forefront of > development?" I think it should be, and it seems like many others agree. > We should not limit what is possible in trunk because corporate overlords > are afraid of change. > > On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Benson Margulies <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Robert Muir <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Chris Hostetter >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> > b) that your argument against benson's claims seemed missleading: just >>> > because Oracle is EOLing doesn't mean people won't be using OpenJDK; >>> even >>> > if they are using Oracle's JDK, if they are large comercial >>> organizations >>> > they might pay oracle to keep using it for a long time. >>> > >>> >>> Its not misleading at all, its being practical. If people want to use >>> old jvm versions, good for them. But if they open a corruption bug >>> with one of these "commercial" versions, then my only choice is to >>> close as "wont fix". So they might as well just use an old lucene >>> version, too. >>> >> >> Here's what I know. Over the last few years, the large entities my >> employer sells to have been very slow to move to new Java versions. Why? I >> dunno, maybe all of them have Mordac working there. Do they pay for >> security fixes from Oracle? Or do they just stick their heads in the sand? >> I can't tell you. One that is on my mind right now may just barely make it >> to 1.7 this year. >> >> We (meaning this project, not my employer) generally require that >> 'significant' changes go into major releases. So, that ties together the >> JVM version and these changes. Thus my desire to see a way to get the >> pending trunk work to people who are not moving to 1.8 any time soon. An >> alternative would be to have a different policy for what can go into a 4.x. >> I thought I saw a message go by about a 5x branch the other day, so perhaps >> things are already exactly what I am asking for, and I apologize for the >> noise. Given how long it is likely to be until 6.0, I am not here to argue >> that 6.0 should not require 1.8. I like a nice lambda expression as well as >> the next guy. >> >> >> >> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>> >>> >> >
