Proposed F19 Feature: Java 8

[Stephen Gallagher]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed 23 Jan 2013 03:27:51 PM EST, Deepak Bhole wrote:
> * Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh at redhat.com> [2013-01-23 15:22]:
>> On Wed 23 Jan 2013 02:53:30 PM EST, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
>>> = Features/Java8TechPreview =
>>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Java8TechPreview
>>>
>>> Feature owner(s): Deepak Bhole <dbhole at redhat.com>
>>>
>>> Add a tech preview preview of the the upcoming version of Java (OpenJDK8) to
>>> Fedora 19.
>>>
>>> == Detailed description ==
>>> The current Java implementation in Fedora comes from OpenJDK.
>>>
>>> Java 8 (and OpenJDK8) are tentatively scheduled for release in September 2013.
>>> Fedora 19 will most likely be out just a few months before that, and is
>>> therefore positioned to receive a tech preview version of the latest OpenJDK8
>>> candidates.
>>
>>
>> Given that it's not expected to be in final release for Fedora 19, can
>> we please ensure that we're talking about a parallel-installable
>> version alongside OpenJDK 7 (and that Java packages for Fedora are kept
>> compiled with OpenJDK 7 unless it is impossible to do so)?
>>
>
> Hi Stephen,
>
> Not sure what you mean by "Given that it's not expected to be in final
> release for Fedora 19" -- unless that was a typo and you meant that the
> final version of OpenJDK8 is not expected to be in Fedora 19 ... in case
> of latter, that holds true for GA. However OpenJDK8 final is expected to
> be out in September and we will likely upgrade to it in F19 when it is
> out.
>
> As for it being parallel-installable, yes, that is definitely what we
> will be doing. We will do exactly what we did with Fedora 16, whereby
> OpenJDK6 and OpenJDK7 were installable in parallel. All packages in F16
> were built with OpenJDK6 and similarly, everything in F19 will be built
> with OpenJDK7. OpenJDK8 will be completely optional and nothing will
> depend on it in F19.
>
> We will not consider making OpenJDK8 the default at least until Fedora
> 20.
>

Yes, you interpreted my question correctly. Thank you for clarifying.
I'm certainly on-board with this proposal.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlEBNIAACgkQeiVVYja6o6NhFACgmLAcwnx59a+btA2Iaj+Ujf+M
9QIAn2T0sVMiH8e5X91XEkaChd9lhf5w
=+Wsl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----