I agree with Till, but is this something you want to address in this release already?
I would postpone it to 1.0.0. – Ufuk > On 26 Oct 2015, at 16:17, Till Rohrmann <trohrm...@apache.org> wrote: > > I would be in favor of deploying also Scala 2.11 artifacts to Maven since > more and more people will try out Flink with Scala 2.11. Having the > dependencies in the Maven repository makes it considerably easier for > people to get their Flink jobs running. > > Furthermore, I observed that people are not aware that our deployed > artifacts, e.g. flink-runtime, are built with Scala 2.10. As a consequence, > they mix flink dependencies with other dependencies pulling in Scala 2.11 > and then they wonder that the program crashes. It would be, imho, clearer > if all our dependencies which depend on a specific Scala version would have > the corresponding Scala suffix appended. > > Adding the 2.10 suffix would also spare us the hassle of upgrading to a > newer Scala version in the future, because then the artifacts wouldn't > share the same artifact name. > > Cheers, > Till > > On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 4:04 PM, Maximilian Michels <m...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Hi Flinksters, >> >> We have recently committed an easy way to change Flink's Scala version. The >> question arises now whether we should ship Scala 2.11 as binaries and via >> Maven. For the rc0, I created all binaries twice, for Scala 2.10 and 2.11. >> However, I didn't create Maven artifacts. This follows our current shipping >> strategy where we only ship Hadoop1 and Hadoop 2.3.0 Maven dependencies but >> additionally Hadoop 2.4, 2.6, 2.7 as binaries. >> >> Should we also upload Maven dependencies for Scala 2.11? >> >> If so, the next question arises: What version pattern should we have for >> the Flink Scala 2.11 dependencies? For Hadoop, we append -hadoop1 to the >> VERSION, e.g. artifactID=flink-core, version=0.9.1-hadoop1. >> >> However, it is common practice to append the suffix to the artifactID of >> the Maven dependency, e.g. artifactID=flink-core_2.11, version=0.9.1. This >> has mostly historic reasons but is widely used. >> >> Whatever naming pattern we choose, it should be consistent. I would be in >> favor of changing our artifact names to contain the Hadoop and Scala >> version. This would also imply that all Scala dependent Maven modules >> receive a Scala suffix (also the default Scala 2.10 modules). >> >> Cheers, >> Max >>
