jmeter-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Milamber <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release JMeter 5.2 RC4
Date Thu, 24 Oct 2019 19:23:27 GMT

I can cancel the RC4 vote or a PMC member can put a -1 (veto) to the 
Currently if I count my (future) vote +1 and the 2 +1 from Vladimir and 
Philippe, the RC4 will pass the vote.

What is your (PMC member) preference?

On 23/10/2019 16:28, Philippe Mouawad wrote:
> Hello,
> I think we should do another rc restoring browser component.
> I find it helpful when debugging a script.
> So unless there is a blocker, it should be restored.
> Thanks
> On Wednesday, October 23, 2019, Felix Schumacher <
>> wrote:
>> Am 23.10.19 um 15:12 schrieb Vladimir Sitnikov:
>>>> I already use the Oracle Java 8 to build the releases (RC4 include)
>>> Well. By "Require release manager" I mean **every** release manager.
>>> For instance, I have not purchased Java license from Oracle. Does that
>> mean
>>> I must buy one in order to be the release manager?
>> You don't have to buy a license to use the last openly available JDK 8
>> from Oracle. But it might be difficult to download it. (I found a link
>> to the archive under the FAQ from the download for Java 8.
>> )
>>> The next question is what if someone downloads JMeter sources and tries
>> to
>>> build it?
>> That depends -- as earlier -- on the version of used Java. At the moment
>> you will only get a working JavaFX control, if you use Oracle JDK 8
>> (plus the parameter).
>>> Does that mean they must use Oracle Java?
>> No (if they are not interested in that special control)
>>> Does that mean they should get build failure when using builds like
>>> AdoptOpenJDK?
>> No (it didn't with the ant build -- I think we checked for a JavaFX
>> class on the classpath to decide whether we should compile it)
>>> The current implementation is "JavaFX opt-in".
>> At the moment I tend to include it on building the release, but I have
>> sympathy with your arguments, that JavaFX is really difficult to use at
>> build/run time.
>> I am less sure with every time we are talking about it, that it is
>> valuable enough to keep the feature.
>> But if we drop it now from the release, we should mention it in the
>> change logs and hope that someone comes up with an alternative, that we
>> can include some day.
>> Felix
>>> Vladimir

View raw message