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 sense to me.
On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 9:50 AM Russell Spitzer <russell.spit...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 > > On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 11:47 AM huaxin gao <huaxin.ga...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> We don't have to drop JDK11 support. In spark-ci, I can change the matrix >> to only run Java 17 for Spark 4.0, but in java-ci, we might not be able to >> build java docs and do build checks for JDK 11. >> >> Huaxin >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 9:32 AM Jack Ye <yezhao...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Does that mean we also need to drop JDK11 support? >>> >>> I think there should be a way to configure CI to only run JDK17 for >>> Spark 4.0: >>> >>> >>> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/blob/main/.github/workflows/spark-ci.yml#L74 >>> >>> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/68994484/how-to-skip-a-configuration-of-a-matrix-with-github-actions >>> >>> -Jack >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 9:15 AM huaxin gao <huaxin.ga...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> It seems my earlier question might have been overlooked. Could we >>>> clarify if JDK 8 support is being dropped in the next version? The proposal >>>> indicated for Iceberg 2.0 release, but it's unclear if that's our next >>>> version. Given that I'm working on Spark 4.0 support >>>> <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/10622>, which only runs on >>>> Java 17 and 21, dropping JDK 8 in the next release could help us maintain >>>> consistency with Spark's Java requirements. >>>> >>>> Thanks 🙂 >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 8:21 AM Ryan Blue <b...@databricks.com.invalid> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> +1 >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 10:49 PM Péter Váry < >>>>> peter.vary.apa...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> +1 (non-binding) >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2024, 07:15 Ajantha Bhat <ajanthab...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> +1 (non-binding) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 9:54 AM Yufei Gu <flyrain...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Manu, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If JDK 8 support is dropped in 2.0, will we continue to fix >>>>>>>>> critical issues in 1.6+? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nothing stops people from cutting a release, and it becomes an >>>>>>>> official release once it is approved. Here is the Apache Release >>>>>>>> Policy for >>>>>>>> reference, https://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yufei >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 7:22 PM Renjie Liu <liurenjie2...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> +1 (non-binding) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 9:40 AM Szehon Ho <szehon.apa...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> +1 for dropping JDK 8 in Iceberg 2.0. I also wonder the same >>>>>>>>>> thing as Huaxin (sorry if I missed a previous thread on Iceberg 2.0 >>>>>>>>>> plan). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Also as Huaxin has discovered in Spark 4.0 Support PR >>>>>>>>>> <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/10622>, looks like we >>>>>>>>>> may have to drop Java8 first in Spark 4.0 module, due to it being >>>>>>>>>> dropped >>>>>>>>>> in Spark 4.0, before Iceberg 2.0. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>>>> Szehon >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 6:31 PM huaxin gao < >>>>>>>>>> huaxin.ga...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> +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 >>>>>>>>>>> straight to >>>>>>>>>>> 2.0? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 5:32 PM Manu Zhang < >>>>>>>>>>> owenzhang1...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> If JDK 8 support is dropped in 2.0, will we continue to fix >>>>>>>>>>>> critical issues in 1.6+? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 1:35 AM Jack Ye <yezhao...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> +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 AM Yufei Gu < >>>>>>>>>>>>> flyrain...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1(binding), as much as I want to drop JDK 8, still encourage >>>>>>>>>>>>>> everyone to spark out about any concerns. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yufei >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 10:24 AM Steven Wu < >>>>>>>>>>>>>> stevenz...@gmail.com> 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 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 concerned raised, as some people still use >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JDK 8. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let me start this new thread for a discussion and perhaps >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formal vote for dropping JDK 8 support in Iceberg 2.0 release. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Piotr >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Ryan Blue >>>>> Databricks >>>>> >>>> -- Ryan Blue Databricks
