That would be awesome. I’m not sure whether we want 3.0 to be right after 2.3 (I guess this Scala issue is one reason to start discussing that), but even if we do, I imagine that wouldn’t be out for at least 4-6 more months after 2.3, and that’s a long time to go without Scala 2.12 support. If we decide to do 2.4 next instead, that’s even longer.
Matei > On Sep 1, 2017, at 1:52 AM, Sean Owen <so...@cloudera.com> wrote: > > OK, what I'll do is focus on some changes that can be merged to master > without impacting the 2.11 build (e.g. putting kafka-0.8 behind a profile, > maybe, or adding the 2.12 REPL). Anything that is breaking, we can work on in > a series of open PRs, or maybe a branch, yea. It's unusual but might be > worthwhile. > > On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 9:44 AM Matei Zaharia <matei.zaha...@gmail.com> wrote: > If the changes aren’t that hard, I think we should also consider building a > Scala 2.12 version of Spark 2.3 in a separate branch. I’ve definitely seen > concerns from some large Scala users that Spark isn’t supporting 2.12 soon > enough. I thought SPARK-14220 was blocked mainly because the changes are > hard, but if not, maybe we can release such a branch sooner. > > Matei > > > On Aug 31, 2017, at 3:59 AM, Sean Owen <so...@cloudera.com> wrote: > > > > I don't think there's a target. The changes aren't all that hard (see the > > SPARK-14220 umbrella) but there are some changes that are hard or > > impossible without changing key APIs, as far as we can see. That would > > suggest 3.0. > > > > One motivation I have here for getting it as far as possible otherwise is > > so people could, if they wanted, create a 2.12 build themselves without > > much work even if it were not supported upstream. This particular change is > > a lot of the miscellaneous stuff you'd have to fix to get to that point. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org
