sorry if this is not adding to the discussion. Based on what you are saying, my feeling is that all that is false dilemma. (Assuming h20bindings also compile with 1.6 and we will find a way to iron out 1.6 test issue easily enough. If not, bummer then.)
Requiring != supporting. Current master supports both things in terms of build/runtime compatibility. Requiring 1.7 means supporting only one thing. >From where i come from, having two things is usually better than having one. Unless one of two things is given away in favor of something substantially better. The only such thing presumably worth the sacrifice would be new code contributions to Mahout that absolutely require 1.7 for semantic reasons. (since runtime 1.7 and i suspect even 1.8 are already supported). Some new dependencies that come only in 1.7 artifacts might be another one. As it stands, Mahout's master branch currently has exactly 0 semantically 1.7 or 1.8 java in its code base. Until such contribution appears, the issue seems moot (not sure about 1500, never tried to compile it, this might be a valid reason to move up.) And it is not terribly likely to appear because Mahout is leaning towards scala contributions now. So new substantial java contributions are not terribly likely. Also, in the community where i "twit" there's general sense that there's nothing in 1.7 or 1.8 that upends Scala in any meaningful way, so the tools around will likely see just more scala based stuff (scalding, spark, Mahout algebra, MLOptimizer, Breeze to name just a few examples of the newer an more popular scala stuff ). On java side, on the other hand, there's been practically no new projects introduced of similar scale in past couple years. On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Andrew Palumbo <[email protected]> wrote: > It does not require 1.7 to build. I've been running 1.6 as well. I did > compile m-1500. It builds fine with 1.6, but tests fail (only the h2o > module- as you said due to the h2o artifact being built w 1.7). My thinking > is that we don't want new Mahout users building with 1.6, having tests fail > and walking away. Can we release with failing tests (even if its 1.6 > specific)? > > As well if there were other issues with 1.6 holding us back, 1.6 is > getting old and there's no real drawbacks, maybe we should consider 1.7 as > an official version. Or as I said just make a quick fix on the building > from source page. > > > > > > Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2014 14:21:36 -0700 > > Subject: Re: Requiring Java 1.7 for Mahout > > From: [email protected] > > To: [email protected] > > > > I am not sure if it actually would require 1.7 to build either, since my > > understanding dependencies are second-order and deeper, not immediate. > Did > > you try to compile it yet? > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Andrew Palumbo <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > also sorry- btw- I assuming 1500 will be merged.. > > > > > > > From: [email protected] > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > Subject: RE: Requiring Java 1.7 for Mahout > > > > Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2014 16:56:39 -0400 > > > > > > > > oracle? > > > > > > > > > Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2014 13:54:43 -0700 > > > > > Subject: Re: Requiring Java 1.7 for Mahout > > > > > From: [email protected] > > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > or testing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Dmitriy Lyubimov < > [email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > My current java is 1.6.0_38, i have no problem building. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Andrew Palumbo < > [email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> you're right- my big concern is that on our (probably outdated) > > > building > > > > > >> from source page we have 1.6 listed: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> http://mahout.apache.org/developers/buildingmahout.html > > > > > >> > > > > > >> The obvious simple fix here is to make the quick change on the > > > webpage to > > > > > >> 1.7 in order to build and test successfully. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I do remember something about being limited to our current > lucene > > > version > > > > > >> though by 1.6 so i am wondering if this is may be a good time to > > > push or > > > > > >> require 1.7. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Just checking our bases, so I'll drop it if there's no problem > here. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Thanks > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2014 13:33:19 -0700 > > > > > >> > Subject: Re: Requiring Java 1.7 for Mahout > > > > > >> > From: [email protected] > > > > > >> > To: [email protected] > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > the only problem is that we are not really requiring it. We > are > > > not > > > > > >> using > > > > > >> > anything of 1.7 functionality. If people compile (as i do) > > > Mahout, they > > > > > >> can > > > > > >> > compile any bytecode version they want. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > There are some 1.7 artifact dependencies in H20 but 1.7 would > be > > > > > >> required > > > > > >> > at run time only and only if the people are actually using > > > h2obindings > > > > > >> as > > > > > >> > dependency (which i expect majority would not care for). > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Andrew Palumbo < > > > [email protected]> > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > As far as I can tell there should be no problems with > declaring > > > Java > > > > > >> 1.7 > > > > > >> > > as the official minimum Java version for building and > running > > > Mahout. > > > > > >> Are > > > > > >> > > there any objections to this or problems that I am missing? > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > Andy > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
