Hi Tsz-Wo, we have the ozone-2.1 branch to backport fixes for the next patch release in the 2.x line, while master will track the next release according to the SNAPSHOT version in the POM. Do you think we need another branch? Seems like it will be harder to manage.
Ethan On Sun, Feb 1, 2026 at 12:45 PM Tsz Wo Sze <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Attila and others, > > > With 2.0 and 2.1 out, I guess we should make this change in 3.0. > I agree that the JDK change should be in 3.0. > > We should also take this chance to update the protos to protobuf 3. > - e.g. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDDS-10481 > > Also, we probably should create branch-2 from the master branch? > Otherwise, it may become very hard to release bug fix versions for 2.0 and > 2.1. > > Tsz-Wo > > > > On Thu, Jan 29, 2026 at 3:18 AM Attila Doroszlai <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > To continue receiving fixes for these dependencies, we would need to > > > bump the minimum Java required for building Ozone. We would also > > > require the same version for running server components. Client > > > components should still be usable with Java 8. > > > > Pull request for bumping server-side Java to 17: > > https://github.com/apache/ozone/pull/9640 > > > > > I think the next major version, 2.0 would be a good candidate to make > > > such a move. We should continue to support Java 8 with 1.4.x. > > > > With 2.0 and 2.1 out, I guess we should make this change in 3.0. > > > > -Attila > > > > full thread: > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/k9kvobrg7ybthjfs78rfscpc2lty5x5y > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > >
