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 <b...@databricks.com.invalid> 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 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 >
