-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 8.9k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
HADOOP-19397. Update LICENSE-binary with jersey 2 details #7315
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@steveloughran @ayushtkn @Hexiaoqiao Using this PR, I would like to ask whether we need to backport this(Hadoop-15984) to branch-3.4, or should we release it in hadoop-3.5.0?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm starting to wonder what it'd take to get a 3.5.0 out, with java 17 the minimum version...
how incompatible is this change downstream?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
From my perspective, I haven't noticed any significant compatibility issues so far, as Jersey 2.46 should be able to compile without issues on JDK 8, JDK 11, and JDK 17. I tried compiling the trunk code with JDK 17, and everything worked fine. Of course, if we plan to release the first version officially supporting JDK 17, there is still some additional work to be done. The biggest task right now is upgrading from JUnit 4 to JUnit 5, and my colleague and I are working on this together. He has developed an automated code conversion tool that can greatly improve the efficiency of the upgrade. I'm currently coordinating with him to verify the details, and once everything is confirmed, we can accelerate the migration from JUnit 4 to JUnit 5.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@pjfanning Can you share any compatibility issues you've encountered? I personally haven't noticed any. Of course, there are a few unit test failures under JDK 11, but I will be submitting a fix in a PR soon.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If we've prepared the trunk code for compatibility with JDK 17, including unit tests and CI, do we still need to release hadoop-3.4.2, or can we directly release hadoop-3.5.0 based on the trunk?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think a 3.4.2 can go out anyway, so people on java <17 can upgrade with lower risk dependency updates etc, and java8+
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I support your point of view. We indeed need to keep two versions (hadoop-3.4.2 and hadoop-3.5.0) until JDK 17 becomes stable enough.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for your works. IMO, it's not necessary to backport Hadoop-15984 to other active line. In my opinion support to JDK17 should be as one new feature with release-3.5 line, and other release line keep the current status. We will launch discuss about the first release version of line 3.5 when HDFS-17384([HDFS NameNode FGL) and HDFS-17531(Asynchronous router RPC) are ready. What do you think about?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@Hexiaoqiao Thank you for your message! I agree with your point. We will keep HADOOP-15984 in the trunk branch and avoid updating it in the active branches to continue verifying this change. Once the other features are ready, we can discuss the release plan for Hadoop 3.5.0 together. In the meantime, I will continue to follow up on the JDK 17 upgrade and the necessary improvements, hoping we can successfully achieve our goals.