Re: Dropping JDK 8 support

Hi Huaxin, Do you have facts to support this claim? This is also saying most users are using Spark 3.5. I've skipped Spark 3.3 and Spark 3.4 here since they are not LTS versions but there could be users on those as well. > The configuration of Spark 3.5 with JDK 11 and JDK 17 is very stable, and

Re: Dropping JDK 8 support

+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 my informal "+1" (this is not a

Re: Dropping JDK 8 support

Hi Piotr I agree to drop JDK8 support (and related modules). You have my informal "+1" (this is not a formal vote thread as the subject doesn't contain [VOTE] :)). Thanks ! Regards JB On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 3:35 PM Piotr Findeisen wrote: > > Hi, > > in the "Building with JDK 21" email thread

Re: Dropping JDK 8 support

Hey everyone, I'm also in favor of dropping JDK8. To give some context in the ecosystem, next to Spark 4, a lot of projects are moving beyond Java 8: 1. Arrow dropped JDK8 support last week which will be part of the next 18.0.0 release. 2.

Re: Dropping JDK 8 support

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 Iceberg 2.0 release

Re: Dropping JDK 8 support

+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

Re: Dropping JDK 8 support

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. - Wing Yew

Re: Dropping JDK 8 support

I understand that transitioning from JDK 8 to JDK 11 requires some effort from the users. However, even if we wait until version 2.0, we still encounter the same problem. I don't see the need for more time to test the discontinuation of JDK 8 support. The configuration of Spark 3.5 with JDK 11 and

Re: Dropping JDK 8 support

Yes, I'm asking for users who use JDK 8 with Spark 3.5. Users can continue to use 1.6+ with Spark 3.5 and 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 mor

Re: Dropping JDK 8 support

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

Re: Dropping JDK 8 support

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 Zh

Re: Dropping JDK 8 support

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. >

Re: Dropping JDK 8 support

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 harder because

Re: Dropping JDK 8 support

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 sen

Re: Dropping JDK 8 support

+1 (non-binding) Thanks, Steve Zhang > On Jul 22, 2024, at 10:13 PM, Ajantha Bhat wrote: > > +1 (non-binding)

Re: Dropping JDK 8 support

+1 On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 11:47 AM huaxin gao 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

Re: Dropping JDK 8 support

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 wrote: > Does that mean we also need to drop JDK1

Re: Dropping JDK 8 support

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-wit

Re: Dropping JDK 8 support

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

Re: Dropping JDK 8 support

+1 On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 10:49 PM Péter Váry wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > On Tue, Jul 23, 2024, 07:15 Ajantha Bhat wrote: > >> +1 (non-binding) >> >> On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 9:54 AM Yufei Gu wrote: >> >>> Hi Manu, >>> >>> If JDK 8 support is dropped in 2.0, will we continue to fix critical

Re: Dropping JDK 8 support

+1 (non-binding) On Tue, Jul 23, 2024, 07:15 Ajantha Bhat wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 9:54 AM Yufei Gu 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

Re: Dropping JDK 8 support

+1 (non-binding) On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 9:54 AM Yufei Gu 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 R

Re: Dropping JDK 8 support

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.

Re: Dropping JDK 8 support

+1 (non-binding) On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 9:40 AM Szehon Ho 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 >

Re: Dropping JDK 8 support

+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 , looks like we may have to drop Java8 first in Spark 4.0 mod

Re: Dropping JDK 8 support

+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 wrote: > If JDK 8 support is dropped in 2.0, will we continue to fix critical > issues in 1.6+?

Re: Dropping JDK 8 support

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 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 wrot

Re: Dropping JDK 8 support

+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 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, 202

Re: Dropping JDK 8 support

+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 wrote: > +1 (binding) > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 6:37 AM Piotr Findeisen > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> in the "Building with JDK 21" email thread

Re: Dropping JDK 8 support

+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 acceptance for dropping JDK 8 suppo