[JENKINS-68568] Require Java 11 or newer #478
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
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
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -103,7 +103,6 @@ | |
|
|
||
| <mockito.version>4.3.1</mockito.version> | ||
| <access-modifier-checker.version>1.27</access-modifier-checker.version> | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- To opt in to @Restricted(Beta.class) APIs, set to true: --> | ||
| <useBeta>false</useBeta> | ||
|
|
@@ -166,17 +165,6 @@ | |
| <artifactId>junit</artifactId> | ||
| <version>4.13.2</version> | ||
| </dependency> | ||
| <dependency> | ||
| <groupId>org.hamcrest</groupId> | ||
| <artifactId>hamcrest-core</artifactId> | ||
|
|
@@ -235,14 +223,6 @@ | |
| <optional>true</optional> | ||
| </dependency> | ||
|
|
||
| <dependency> | ||
| <!-- to avoid https://www.slf4j.org/codes.html#release warning --> | ||
| <!-- TODO this would be better as a managed version of [0] --> | ||
|
|
@@ -422,11 +402,6 @@ | |
| <artifactId>maven-hpi-plugin</artifactId> | ||
| <version>${hpi-plugin.version}</version> | ||
| </plugin> | ||
| <plugin> | ||
| <groupId>org.jvnet.localizer</groupId> | ||
| <artifactId>localizer-maven-plugin</artifactId> | ||
|
|
@@ -515,7 +490,7 @@ | |
| </requirePluginVersions> | ||
| --> | ||
| <enforceBytecodeVersion> | ||
| <maxJdkVersion>${java.level}</maxJdkVersion> | ||
| <ignoredScopes> | ||
| <ignoredScope>test</ignoredScope> | ||
| </ignoredScopes> | ||
|
|
@@ -699,31 +674,10 @@ | |
| <plugin> | ||
| <artifactId>maven-compiler-plugin</artifactId> | ||
| <configuration> | ||
| <release>${java.level}</release> | ||
| <testRelease>${java.level}</testRelease> | ||
| </configuration> | ||
| </plugin> | ||
| <plugin> | ||
| <artifactId>maven-eclipse-plugin</artifactId> | ||
| </plugin> | ||
|
|
@@ -736,7 +690,7 @@ | |
| <webApp> | ||
| <contextPath>/jenkins</contextPath> | ||
| </webApp> | ||
| <minimumJavaVersion>${java.level}</minimumJavaVersion> | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. We should just get rid of this in There was a problem hiding this comment.
I tend to agree, but I am not tackling that cleanup in this PR. |
||
| <systemProperties> | ||
| <hudson.Main.development>${hudson.Main.development}</hudson.Main.development> | ||
| </systemProperties> | ||
|
|
@@ -950,26 +904,9 @@ | |
| </file> | ||
| </activation> | ||
| <properties> | ||
| <java.level>11</java.level> | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. No this must be reverted so long as Line 64 in 3325bb8 There was a problem hiding this comment. It cannot be reverted while also accomplishing the purpose of this PR, which is stated in the PR description:
The minimum Jenkins version cannot yet be updated because we do not know which version will drop support for Java 8, but the intention is that when we do we would update the minimum Jenkins version to that version. There was a problem hiding this comment. Right, I misunderstood the intent of this PR. |
||
| </properties> | ||
| </profile> | ||
| <profile> | ||
| <id>jenkins-release</id> | ||
| <properties> | ||
|
|
@@ -1519,7 +1456,6 @@ | |
| <spotbugs.skip>true</spotbugs.skip> | ||
| <enforcer.skip>true</enforcer.skip> | ||
| <access-modifier-checker.skip>true</access-modifier-checker.skip> | ||
| <invoker.skip>true</invoker.skip> | ||
| </properties> | ||
| </profile> | ||
|
|
||
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
This is going to break for
java.level=8.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.
Good thing this PR explicitly drops support for
java.level=8, then, as stated in the PR description: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.
Yeah but we cannot just do that because then people cannot simply accept updates to the parent POM without also updating
jenkins.versionto something very new.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 mean, we could, but then we have plugin POM versions that work with older cores but are not well suited to newer cores, and POM versions that require newer cores, without any overlap. So this seems pretty drastic when we normally encourage people to update the parent even when the core version is a few LTS lines behind. For example, anyone staying with an older line would not be able to accept new POM versions for totally unrelated reasons (new tools or JTH).
If we really go with the flag day approach in this PR, then we should definitely get rid of the
java.levelproperty as it serves no purpose. Add a profile making it an error to set it, and hard-code 11 as the Java level. And make sure that the build fails early and clearly when yourjenkins.versionis too old.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 we can. We can always do a backport branch if we want to deliver plugin parent POM updates to plugins that do not want to upgrade
jenkins.versionto something very new.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.
Yes it is drastic but nevertheless feasible without changing the current semantics of
java.levelbeing defined in a<properties>section in pluginpom.xmlfiles. Other proposals like #133 are not feasible as far as I can tell so long as feedback like this remain unaddressed.That approach could be feasible (and less drastic!), but it would be a lot more work and (as of today) I am explicitly not volunteering to do that work.
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.
Agree with Basil, because of how this was done you can't keep compat.
We can run a 4.x branch if we need to backport changes...
alternatively plugins that want to stay on old core could just set this to 1.8?
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.
IIRC that will break other places which expect
8.