Re: [VOTE] Clarifying our JDK Support Policy

We're at quorum so vote passes! Binding: 14 +1, no -1 Non-binding: 3 +1 And that means I won't feel guilty for engaging in more discussion on a [VOTE] thread. :D > • potential necessity to update 3rd party dependencies in GA branches to > support a newer JDK > • deprecating of JDK features we

[RESULT][VOTE] Clarifying our JDK Support Policy

r the discussion and vote participation! - Original message - From: Josh McKenzie To: dev Subject: [VOTE] Clarifying our JDK Support Policy Date: Friday, June 13, 2025 7:56 AM [DISCUSS] thread: https://lists.apache.org/thread/vr7j2ob92k6fbcwvlfo60l3scylzdbft Text to vo

Re: [VOTE] Clarifying our JDK Support Policy

+1 On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 3:17 PM Dmitry Konstantinov wrote: > +1 (nb) > > There are the following pain points (mentioned in the discussion thread as > well) related to this option but other options look even worse :-), so I > think it is a fair cost: > >- potential necessity to update 3rd

Re: [VOTE] Clarifying our JDK Support Policy

+1 (nb) There are the following pain points (mentioned in the discussion thread as well) related to this option but other options look even worse :-), so I think it is a fair cost: - potential necessity to update 3rd party dependencies in GA branches to support a newer JDK - deprecating

Re: [VOTE] Clarifying our JDK Support Policy

+1 On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 8:28 AM C. Scott Andreas wrote: > +1 > > On Jun 18, 2025, at 11:08 AM, Aleksey Yeshchenko > wrote: > > +1 > > On 18 Jun 2025, at 14:24, Josh McKenzie wrote: > > We're at 10 binding +1. Need 3 more to move this across the line. > > On Tue, Jun 17, 2025, at 6:58 PM, J

Re: [VOTE] Clarifying our JDK Support Policy

+1On Jun 18, 2025, at 11:08 AM, Aleksey Yeshchenko wrote:+1On 18 Jun 2025, at 14:24, Josh McKenzie wrote:We're at 10 binding +1. Need 3 more to move this across the line.On Tue, Jun 17, 2025, at 6:58 PM, Joseph Lynch wrote:+1On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 1:47 PM David Capwell wrot

Re: [VOTE] Clarifying our JDK Support Policy

+1 > On 18 Jun 2025, at 14:24, Josh McKenzie wrote: > > We're at 10 binding +1. Need 3 more to move this across the line. > > On Tue, Jun 17, 2025, at 6:58 PM, Joseph Lynch wrote: >> +1 >> >> On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 1:47 PM David Capwell > > wrote: >> +1 >> >>> On J

Re: [VOTE] Clarifying our JDK Support Policy

We're at 10 binding +1. Need 3 more to move this across the line. On Tue, Jun 17, 2025, at 6:58 PM, Joseph Lynch wrote: > +1 > > On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 1:47 PM David Capwell wrote: >> +1 >> >>> On Jun 17, 2025, at 3:44 AM, Štefan Miklošovič >>> wrote: >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 13, 202

Re: [VOTE] Clarifying our JDK Support Policy

+1 On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 1:47 PM David Capwell wrote: > +1 > > On Jun 17, 2025, at 3:44 AM, Štefan Miklošovič > wrote: > > +1 > > On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 1:58 PM Josh McKenzie > wrote: > >> [DISCUSS] thread: >> https://lists.apache.org/thread/vr7j2ob92k6fbcwvlfo60l3scylzdbft >> >> Text to vo

Re: [VOTE] Clarifying our JDK Support Policy

+1 > On Jun 17, 2025, at 3:44 AM, Štefan Miklošovič wrote: > > +1 > > On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 1:58 PM Josh McKenzie > wrote: >> [DISCUSS] thread: >> https://lists.apache.org/thread/vr7j2ob92k6fbcwvlfo60l3scylzdbft >> >> Text to vote on: >> ---

Re: [VOTE] Clarifying our JDK Support Policy

+1 On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 1:58 PM Josh McKenzie wrote: > [DISCUSS] thread: > https://lists.apache.org/thread/vr7j2ob92k6fbcwvlfo60l3scylzdbft > > Text to vote on: > > -- > *[New LTS JDK Adoption]* > >- When

Re: [VOTE] Clarifying our JDK Support Policy

t;> To: dev@cassandra.apache.org <mailto:dev@cassandra.apache.org> >>> mailto:dev@cassandra.apache.org>> >>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Clarifying our JDK Support Policy >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> Brandon >

Re: [VOTE] Clarifying our JDK Support Policy

scussion, the plan makes sense to me. >> >> From: Brandon Williams mailto:dri...@gmail.com>> >> Sent: Friday, June 13, 2025 12:09:35 PM >> To: dev@cassandra.apache.org <mailto:dev@cassandra.apache.org> >> mailto:dev@cassandra.apache.org>> >

Re: [VOTE] Clarifying our JDK Support Policy

gt; *Subject:* Re: [VOTE] Clarifying our JDK Support Policy > > +1 > > Kind Regards, > Brandon > > On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 12:23 PM Josh McKenzie > wrote: > > > > If removed, we drop the required older JDK across all branches when the > feature is removed. &g

Re: [VOTE] Clarifying our JDK Support Policy

+1 (nb) Read through the long discussion, the plan makes sense to me. From: Brandon Williams Sent: Friday, June 13, 2025 12:09:35 PM To: dev@cassandra.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Clarifying our JDK Support Policy +1 Kind Regards, Brandon On Fri, Jun 13

Re: [VOTE] Clarifying our JDK Support Policy

+1 On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 at 15:10, Brandon Williams wrote: > +1 > > Kind Regards, > Brandon > > On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 12:23 PM Josh McKenzie > wrote: > > > > If removed, we drop the required older JDK across all branches when the > feature is removed. > > > > Talking to Doug about this; let's r

Re: [VOTE] Clarifying our JDK Support Policy

+1 Kind Regards, Brandon On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 12:23 PM Josh McKenzie wrote: > > If removed, we drop the required older JDK across all branches when the > feature is removed. > > Talking to Doug about this; let's revise this phrasing to: > "When the feature has been removed from all supported

Re: [VOTE] Clarifying our JDK Support Policy

+1 On Jun 13, 2025 at 12:22:06 PM, Josh McKenzie wrote: > If removed, we drop the required older JDK across all branches when the > feature is removed. > > Talking to Doug about this; let's revise this phrasing to: > "When the feature has been removed from all supported branches, the > constrai

Re: [VOTE] Clarifying our JDK Support Policy

+1 On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 11:40 AM Mick Semb Wever wrote: > +1 > > On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 at 13:58, Josh McKenzie wrote: > >> +1 >> >> On Fri, Jun 13, 2025, at 7:56 AM, Josh McKenzie wrote: >> >> [DISCUSS] thread: >> https://lists.apache.org/thread/vr7j2ob92k6fbcwvlfo60l3scylzdbft >> >> Text to v

Re: [VOTE] Clarifying our JDK Support Policy

+1 On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 at 13:58, Josh McKenzie wrote: > +1 > > On Fri, Jun 13, 2025, at 7:56 AM, Josh McKenzie wrote: > > [DISCUSS] thread: > https://lists.apache.org/thread/vr7j2ob92k6fbcwvlfo60l3scylzdbft > > Text to vote on: > >

Re: [VOTE] Clarifying our JDK Support Policy

> If removed, we drop the required older JDK across all branches when the > feature is removed. Talking to Doug about this; let's revise this phrasing to: "When the feature has been removed from all supported branches, the constraint to retain JDK support for that feature drops with it." On Fri

Re: [VOTE] Clarifying our JDK Support Policy

+1 On Fri, Jun 13, 2025, at 7:56 AM, Josh McKenzie wrote: > [DISCUSS] thread: > https://lists.apache.org/thread/vr7j2ob92k6fbcwvlfo60l3scylzdbft > > Text to vote on: > -- > *[New LTS JDK Adoption]* > • When a ne

[VOTE] Clarifying our JDK Support Policy

[DISCUSS] thread: https://lists.apache.org/thread/vr7j2ob92k6fbcwvlfo60l3scylzdbft Text to vote on: -- *[New LTS JDK Adoption]* • When a new JDK goes LTS, we prioritize: • Moving trunk to build, run, pass CI,