-
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
base: trunk
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
🎊 +1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
org.glassfish.jersey.containers:jersey-container-servlet-core:2.46 | ||
org.glassfish.jersey.media:jersey-media-json-jettison:2.46 | ||
org.glassfish.jersey.media:jersey-media-jaxb:2.46 | ||
|
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.
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.
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 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?
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.
@pjfanning Thank you for your contribution! From my perspective, the change seems reasonable. However, could we submit a new associated JIRA to address this? I plan to close HADOOP-15984. |
9fe9e20
to
d740f4f
Compare
@pjfanning I agree with this change. Personally, I think the LICENSE is clearer now. Let's see if other members have any comments. |
🎊 +1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
Description of PR
JIRA: HADOOP-19397. Update LICENSE-binary with jersey 2 details.
Update license for Jersey.
How was this patch tested?
For code changes:
LICENSE
,LICENSE-binary
,NOTICE-binary
files?