+1 on removing Scala 2.11 support for 3.0 given Scala 2.11 is already EOL.
On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 2:53 PM Sean Owen <sro...@apache.org> wrote: > PS: pull request at https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/23098 > Not going to merge it until there's clear agreement. > > On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 10:16 AM Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com> wrote: > > > > +1 to removing 2.11 support for 3.0 and a PR. > > > > It sounds like having multiple Scala builds is just not feasible and I > don't think this will be too disruptive for users since it is already a > breaking change. > > > > On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 7:05 AM Sean Owen <sro...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > >> One more data point -- from looking at the SBT build yesterday, it > >> seems like most plugin updates require SBT 1.x. And both they and SBT > >> 1.x seem to need Scala 2.12. And the new zinc also does. > >> Now, the current SBT and zinc and plugins all appear to work OK with > >> 2.12 now, but updating will pretty much have to wait until 2.11 > >> support goes. (I don't think it's feasible to have two SBT builds.) > >> > >> I actually haven't heard an argument for keeping 2.11, compared to the > >> overhead of maintaining it. Any substantive objections? Would it be > >> too forward to put out a WIP PR that removes it? > >> > >> On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 7:28 PM Sean Owen <sro...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > > >> > I support dropping 2.11 support. My general logic is: > >> > > >> > - 2.11 is EOL, and is all the more EOL in the middle of next year when > >> > Spark 3 arrives > >> > - I haven't heard of a critical dependency that has no 2.12 > counterpart > >> > - 2.11 users can stay on 2.4.x, which will be notionally supported > >> > through, say, end of 2019 > >> > - Maintaining 2.11 vs 2.12 support is modestly difficult, in my > >> > experience resolving these differences across these two versions; it's > >> > a hassle as you need two git clones with different scala versions in > >> > the project tags > >> > - The project is already short on resources to support things as it is > >> > - Dropping things is generally necessary to add new things, to keep > >> > complexity reasonable -- like Scala 2.13 support > >> > > >> > Maintaining a separate PR builder for 2.11 isn't so bad > >> > > >> > On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 4:09 PM Marcelo Vanzin > >> > <van...@cloudera.com.invalid> wrote: > >> > > > >> > > Now that the switch to 2.12 by default has been made, it might be > good > >> > > to have a serious discussion about dropping 2.11 altogether. Many of > >> > > the main arguments have already been talked about. But I don't > >> > > remember anyone mentioning how easy it would be to break the 2.11 > >> > > build now. > >> > > > >> > > For example, the following works fine in 2.12 but breaks in 2.11: > >> > > > >> > > java.util.Arrays.asList("hi").stream().forEach(println) > >> > > > >> > > We had a similar issue when we supported java 1.6 but the builds > were > >> > > all on 1.7 by default. Every once in a while something would > silently > >> > > break, because PR builds only check the default. And the jenkins > >> > > builds, which are less monitored, would stay broken for a while. > >> > > > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org > >> > > > > > > -- > > Ryan Blue > > Software Engineer > > Netflix > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org > > -- - DB Sent from my iPhone
