Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? # to your account

Update JavaVersion for JEP 223 compatibility #75

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

don-vip
Copy link
Contributor

@don-vip don-vip commented Jan 6, 2016

JEP 223 introduces a new version scheme for Java versions >= 9:

http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/223

This fixes https://sourceforge.net/p/findbugs/bugs/1432

JEP 223 introduces a new version scheme for Java versions >= 9
@amaembo
Copy link
Contributor

amaembo commented Jan 10, 2016

So do you think that "1.9.0-ea-b19" and "9-ea+19" should produce different Major version? I doubt that it's useful. Probably it's better to have major = 1, minor = 9 even for "9-ea+19".

@don-vip
Copy link
Contributor Author

don-vip commented Jan 11, 2016

I don't know what's the best solution. I chose the easiest solution, but I'm not familiar enough with Findbugs code and implications of the meaning of major/minor version. I though about the other way: considering "1.7" as equals to "7", to be consistent with new scheme. But that would imply some incompatiblity with previous versions of Findbugs, I don't know if that's OK.

@iloveeclipse
Copy link
Member

I'm starting to look at Java 9 support and I will follow up soon.

@iloveeclipse iloveeclipse mentioned this pull request Jun 5, 2016
8 tasks
iloveeclipse added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 5, 2016
The right approach would be something like #75.
iloveeclipse added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 6, 2016
FB follows now the new JDK version scheme described in
http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/223.

Java versions before Java 9 will have 1 as major segment, and some
meaningful number as major segment starting with Java 9. This should
work for most cases.
@iloveeclipse
Copy link
Member

Vincent, I've committed a simple parsing fix to the java9 branch, see
9d53929

This is not as complex as a regex, but I think it should just work. Can you please adopt your test case and create another PR with that, so that I can merge it on java9 branch, or should I simply do it by myself (your commit info will be not preserved then)?

@don-vip
Copy link
Contributor Author

don-vip commented Jun 6, 2016

It's OK to make the changes directly without my commit information :) It's a long time since I wrote this PR and I don't remember anymore how it works ^^ I'm very grateful you start working on Java 9 support btw !

iloveeclipse added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 6, 2016
Contributed by Vincent Privat, see #75
@iloveeclipse
Copy link
Member

Thanks Vincent, the (slightly modified) test is now on the java9 branch.

@don-vip
Copy link
Contributor Author

don-vip commented Jun 6, 2016

thanks! We will try the development versions very soon in our project 👍

sebasjm pushed a commit to sebasjm/findbugs that referenced this pull request Mar 11, 2018
sebasjm pushed a commit to sebasjm/findbugs that referenced this pull request Mar 11, 2018
…oject#75

FB follows now the new JDK version scheme described in
http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/223.

Java versions before Java 9 will have 1 as major segment, and some
meaningful number as major segment starting with Java 9. This should
work for most cases.
sebasjm pushed a commit to sebasjm/findbugs that referenced this pull request Mar 11, 2018
Contributed by Vincent Privat, see findbugsproject#75
# for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? # to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants