I do agree w.r.t scala 2.10 as well; similar arguments apply (though there is a nuanced diff - source compatibility for scala vs binary compatibility wrt Java) Was there a proposal which did not go through ? Not sure if I missed it.
Regards Mridul On Thursday, March 24, 2016, Koert Kuipers <ko...@tresata.com> wrote: > i think that logic is reasonable, but then the same should also apply to > scala 2.10, which is also unmaintained/unsupported at this point (basically > has been since march 2015 except for one hotfix due to a license > incompatibility) > > who wants to support scala 2.10 three years after they did the last > maintenance release? > > > On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 9:59 PM, Mridul Muralidharan <mri...@gmail.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mri...@gmail.com');>> wrote: > >> Removing compatibility (with jdk, etc) can be done with a major release- >> given that 7 has been EOLed a while back and is now unsupported, we have to >> decide if we drop support for it in 2.0 or 3.0 (2+ years from now). >> >> Given the functionality & performance benefits of going to jdk8, future >> enhancements relevant in 2.x timeframe ( scala, dependencies) which >> requires it, and simplicity wrt code, test & support it looks like a good >> checkpoint to drop jdk7 support. >> >> As already mentioned in the thread, existing yarn clusters are unaffected >> if they want to continue running jdk7 and yet use spark2 (install jdk8 on >> all nodes and use it via JAVA_HOME, or worst case distribute jdk8 as >> archive - suboptimal). >> I am unsure about mesos (standalone might be easier upgrade I guess ?). >> >> >> Proposal is for 1.6x line to continue to be supported with critical >> fixes; newer features will require 2.x and so jdk8 >> >> Regards >> Mridul >> >> >> On Thursday, March 24, 2016, Marcelo Vanzin <van...@cloudera.com >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','van...@cloudera.com');>> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Reynold Xin <r...@databricks.com> >>> wrote: >>> > If you want to go down that route, you should also ask somebody who >>> has had >>> > experience managing a large organization's applications and try to >>> update >>> > Scala version. >>> >>> I understand both sides. But if you look at what I've been asking >>> since the beginning, it's all about the cost and benefits of dropping >>> support for java 1.7. >>> >>> The biggest argument in your original e-mail is about testing. And the >>> testing cost is much bigger for supporting scala 2.10 than it is for >>> supporting java 1.7. If you read one of my earlier replies, it should >>> be even possible to just do everything in a single job - compile for >>> java 7 and still be able to test things in 1.8, including lambdas, >>> which seems to be the main thing you were worried about. >>> >>> >>> > On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 4:48 PM, Marcelo Vanzin <van...@cloudera.com> >>> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Reynold Xin <r...@databricks.com> >>> wrote: >>> >> > Actually it's *way* harder to upgrade Scala from 2.10 to 2.11, than >>> >> > upgrading the JVM runtime from 7 to 8, because Scala 2.10 and 2.11 >>> are >>> >> > not >>> >> > binary compatible, whereas JVM 7 and 8 are binary compatible except >>> >> > certain >>> >> > esoteric cases. >>> >> >>> >> True, but ask anyone who manages a large cluster how long it would >>> >> take them to upgrade the jdk across their cluster and validate all >>> >> their applications and everything... binary compatibility is a tiny >>> >> drop in that bucket. >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> Marcelo >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Marcelo >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@spark.apache.org >>> >>> >
