+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
