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. > > > >
