User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.0
the latest one that I can find is Build
158 on Jan 3/2017 
Wait. It's a March 1 download. It looks like just a zip file for
On 02/03/17 01:15 PM, Wayne Beaton
The flag was changed from "-addmods" to "--add-modules" (see
). I don't quite understand the difference, but I believe
that it has something to do with making it ignorable by other
JVMs (I tried to summarize Tom's thoughts on the topic in the
meeting minutes). Adding the flag for testing purposes is simple
enough; it is, however, disappointing that they've stopped
producing an installer-free JDK (the latest one that I can find
is Build 158 on Jan 3/2017 ).
Tom, is the Equinox update likely to make it into Oxygen M6?
Because it fails. I didn't try https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=493761#c9
and I assume that makes it work, though not on all VM
implementations and versions. It's also a hassle that it's
distributed (by Oracle) as a *.exe that installs it. I tried
these complicated setups for an older version and that worked:
But when I tried to repeat that yesterday for the latest
download, Firefox complained that the 64 bit Windows exe
contained a virus and the above steps didn't work on the
At this point I really don't want to run the Java installer
and have Java 9 ending up being the system default (if that's
what really happens when it's installed) or that the installer
removes older versions (as the installer tends to do).
Presumably the Equinox launcher will be improved soon.
From the notes I see one of the questions is, why can't the
June release already include Java 9 (beta) support? If some
last minute problem arises that can't make it into Oxygen.0, a
respin like the one for Neon in October could be produced,
affecting only the projects that leverage Java 9 features (and
the folks that produce packages and catalogs)...
On 01.03.2017 19:34, Wayne Beaton wrote:
Why can't we currently test running on Java 9? I've been
doing it for months.
On 01/03/17 08:56 AM, Ed Merks
Thanks for being clear on that issue. Support for
compiling and developing Java 9 falls primarily on JDT (I
assume/guess). But support for running the IDE itself on
Java 9 and making sure that works correctly is a burden
that falls on us all. Given we can't currently even test
that, it seems to me it's not a great idea plan that way.
Like you, I don't feel comfortable planning an Oxygen
release date around a Java release date. More flexible
and less risky in my opinion would be an Oxygen.0a update
that could respin primarily any JDT updates that are
needed and would not be so much focused on the statement
that the IDE itself will run on top of Java 9. I.e., more
along the line of what Nick is suggesting...
On 01.03.2017 14:48, Thomas
Bug 493761 needs to be fixed for
Oxygen.0. The issue of launching the Eclipse platform
on Java 9 is different than having the support for
compiling and developing Java 9 classes.
I worry about delaying Oxygen.0 to align
with Java 9 release because I can easily see the Java
9 release getting delayed again. I would not want to
hold up Oxygen.0 for that.
I assume this must be fixed in a general way that
works regardless of whether Java 9 is actually used
or not and regardless of the JVM implementation
provider. Is it hopeful that this will be addressed
in time that we may all test the state of Java 9?
Does it really make sense to plan the whole release
schedule around this assumption? And as Marc
suggests, is planning a release during the high
vacation season a good plan?
On 28.02.2017 18:51, Marc Khouzam wrote:
Considering the dates are so close between
Oxygen.0 and Java 9,
I think having an extra release is more hassle
for adopters than it is worth.
So waiting for Java 9 is a good plan for
One drawback I see is that more people will be
on vacation at that time,
but with proper planning, it should not be a
+1 for moving the
Oxygen.0 release to the JDK9 release date.
Would make things for adopters of that
release easier, too.
> Note that I've added a biggie to the
list: with all the talk about having an
extra release to coincide with the Java 9
release, we've neglected to ask why we
need a release in both June and July. The
Java 9 release date (which by all accounts
is pretty stable) is about a month after
our planned Oxygen date. Is there any
reason why we shouldn't just move the
Oxygen.0 date (other than "we've always
done it that way") ?
> Feel free to answer here. It would be
great if you can come to the meeting armed
with an answer to that question.
> See you on Wednesday.
> For all phone lines: Participant
conference extension: 710 then enter pin
> North America (toll free)
> Germany (local call anywhere in
> France (local call anywhere in
> UK (toll free) 0800-033-7806
> Switzerland (local call anywhere in
> SIP clients: call 710@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
then enter pin 35498.
>  https://wiki.eclipse.org/Planning_Council/February_01_2017
>  https://wiki.eclipse.org/Planning_Council/March_01_2017
> Wayne Beaton
> The Eclipse Foundation
> eclipse.org-planning-council mailing