for dropping JDK8 support in 1.6+ versions.
Thanks,
Manu
On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 2:36 PM Eduard Tudenhöfner
wrote:
> +1 on dropping JDK 8 support with Iceberg 1.7 and I agree that Iceberg 2.0
> should mostly focus around breaking API changes.
>
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 3:45 PM Jean-
+1 on dropping JDK 8 support with Iceberg 1.7 and I agree that Iceberg 2.0
should mostly focus around breaking API changes.
On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 3:45 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré
wrote:
> Hi Piotr
>
> I agree to drop JDK8 support (and related modules).
>
> You have
g with JDK 21" email thread we discussed adding JDK 21 support
> and also dropping JDK 8 support, as these things were initially related.
> A lot of people expressed acceptance for dropping JDK 8 support, and release
> 2.0 was proposed as a timeline.
> There were also conc
d voicing concerns.
>
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 10:56 PM Wing Yew Poon
> wrote:
>
>> I just wish to point out that when people started voting, the proposal
>> was "dropping JDK 8 support in Iceberg 2.0 release".
>> It's fine for people to propose dropping JDK8 su
I apologize. I didn't realize this was a formal voting thread. I thought it
was for discussion and voicing concerns.
On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 10:56 PM Wing Yew Poon
wrote:
> I just wish to point out that when people started voting, the proposal was
> "dropping JDK 8 support in
+1 (nb) in general, and
+1 (nb) on dropping Java 8 in Iceberg 1.7
On 23.07.24 18:54, Steve Zhang wrote:
+1 (non-binding)
Thanks,
Steve Zhang
On Jul 22, 2024, at 10:13 PM, Ajantha Bhat wrote:
+1 (non-binding)
--
Robert Stupp
@snazy
I just wish to point out that when people started voting, the proposal was
"dropping JDK 8 support in Iceberg 2.0 release".
It's fine for people to propose dropping JDK8 support sooner than that (and
I'm not against that), but the proposal being voted on should not be
switched mid-vote.
JDK 8 if we continue to support them.
> If we drop JDK 8 support after 1.6, then there might be issues for Spark
> 3.5 with JDK 8 users.
>
> I'm +1 to drop JDK 8 support in 2.0. I think it's worth more discussion
> and tests for dropping JDK 8 support in 1.6+ versions, which ca
more discussion and
tests for dropping JDK 8 support in 1.6+ versions, which can be another
thread.
On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 10:45 AM huaxin gao wrote:
> Hi Manu,
> Thanks for the discussion. Is your concern about customers who use JDK 8
> with Spark 3.5? But we will face the same problem i
Hi Manu,
Thanks for the discussion. Is your concern about customers who use JDK 8
with Spark 3.5? But we will face the same problem if we drop JDK 8 in
Iceberg 2.0, unless we plan to drop Spark 3.5 support in 2.0.
Huaxin
On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 7:30 PM Renjie Liu wrote:
> Hi, Manu:
>
> > If we
Hi, Manu:
> If we drop JDK 8 support in 1.7, can Iceberg 1.7+ work seamlessly with
Spark 3.5? Otherwise, users might get stuck in 1.6.
I think spark 3.5 supports JDK 8/11/17 according to their doc. So users
could still use iceberg 1.7+ after upgrading JDK.
On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 9:40 AM Manu
Not sure about other engines but Spark has JDK 8 support till 3.5, which
looks like a LTS version.
If we drop JDK 8 support in 1.7, can Iceberg 1.7+ work seamlessly with
Spark 3.5? Otherwise, users might get stuck in 1.6.
>
Thanks Ryan for the reply!
+1 in dropping JDK 8 support in 1.7.
On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 9:59 AM Ryan Blue
wrote:
> I don't have an issue with dropping JDK 8 support in 1.7. I think it is
> better not to align changes like this with major releases because it makes
> major releases harde
I don't have an issue with dropping JDK 8 support in 1.7. I think it is
better not to align changes like this with major releases because it makes
major releases harder because we're trying to get more things in a release.
Putting out a major release just for breaking API changes makes the most
+1 (non-binding)
Thanks,
Steve Zhang
> On Jul 22, 2024, at 10:13 PM, Ajantha Bhat wrote:
>
> +1 (non-binding)
gt;>>>>>>> +1 (non-binding)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have a question about iceberg versioning. After the 1.6
>>>>>>>>>> release, will there be versions 1.7, 1.8 and 1.9, or will it go
>>>>>&g
8 and 1.9, or will it go straight to
>>>>>>>>> 2.0?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 5:32 PM Manu Zhang <
>>>>>>>>> owenzhang1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>&g
will it go straight to 2.0?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 5:32 PM Manu Zhang
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If JDK 8 support is dropped in 2.0, w
t;>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 1:35 AM Jack Ye
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> +1 (binding), I did not expect this to be a vote thread, but
>>>>>>>>> o
(binding), I did not expect this to be a vote thread, but
>>>>>>>> overall +1 for dropping JDK8 support.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -Jack
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 10:30 AM
gt;>>>>> +1 (binding), I did not expect this to be a vote thread, but
>>>>>>> overall +1 for dropping JDK8 support.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Jack
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 10:30
0 AM Yufei Gu
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1(binding), as much as I want to drop JDK 8, still encourage
>>>>>>> everyone to spark out about any concerns.
>>>>>>> Yufei
>>>>>>>
10:30 AM Yufei Gu
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> +1(binding), as much as I want to drop JDK 8, still encourage
>>>>>> everyone to spark out about any concerns.
>>>>>> Yufei
>>>>>>
>>>>&g
t;>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 10:24 AM Steven Wu
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> +1 (binding)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 6:37 AM Piotr Findeisen <
>>>
e
>>>> to spark out about any concerns.
>>>> Yufei
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 10:24 AM Steven Wu
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> +1 (binding)
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mo
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 6:37 AM Piotr Findeisen <
>>>> piotr.findei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> in the "Building with JDK 21" email thread we discussed adding JDK 21
>>>>>
gt; On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 6:37 AM Piotr Findeisen <
>>> piotr.findei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> in the "Building with JDK 21" email thread we discussed adding JDK 21
>>>> support and also
gt; On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 10:24 AM Steven Wu wrote:
>
>> +1 (binding)
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 6:37 AM Piotr Findeisen <
>> piotr.findei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> in the "Building with JDK 21" email threa
uot;Building with JDK 21" email thread we discussed adding JDK 21
>> support and also dropping JDK 8 support, as these things were initially
>> related.
>> A lot of people expressed acceptance for dropping JDK 8 support, and
>> release 2.0 was proposed as a timeline.
+1 (binding)
On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 6:37 AM Piotr Findeisen
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> in the "Building with JDK 21" email thread we discussed adding JDK 21
> support and also dropping JDK 8 support, as these things were initially
> related.
> A lot of people expressed a
Hi,
in the "Building with JDK 21" email thread we discussed adding JDK 21
support and also dropping JDK 8 support, as these things were initially
related.
A lot of people expressed acceptance for dropping JDK 8 support, and
release 2.0 was proposed as a timeline.
There were also concer
31 matches
Mail list logo
