You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@samza.apache.org by Jakob Homan <jg...@gmail.com> on 2014/02/25 22:34:09 UTC
[DISCUSS] Moving to Scala 2.10 as default, deprecating Scala 2.8 support
Currently we support Scala 2.8, 2.9 and 2.10. 2.8 is ancient. 2.9 is
reasonable and, my guess is that 2.10 is the most common. Our default is
2.9.
Since 2.10 is the most common, it may make sense to make the default 2.10.
Is there anyone out there still relying on 2.8? Are there any objections
to removing support for it?
Re: [DISCUSS] Moving to Scala 2.10 as default, deprecating Scala 2.8 support
Posted by Jakob Homan <jg...@gmail.com>.
OK, no one has stepped forward to defend 2.8 or slander 2.10. Opened
SAMZA-160: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SAMZA-160
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Chris Riccomini <cr...@linkedin.com>wrote:
> Hey Garry,
>
> This would be super useful, if you want to dig into it.
>
> JDK 7 is quickly becoming a high priority. We kind of need to support it.
> :)
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
> On 2/25/14 1:51 PM, "Garry Turkington" <g....@improvedigital.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Hi guys,
> >
> >I'm good with defaulting to 2.10 and deprecating 2.8 also.
> >
> >On a related topic SAMZA-16 (JDK 7 support) is looking long in the tooth
> >and given JDK 6 EOL and JDK 8 imminence it'd be nice to validate on the
> >platform. I did a few test builds of Samza on JDK 7 a while ago and found
> >it was intermittently showing some test failures, maybe 1 build in 3.
> >Happy to dig into this but curious if anyone else has investigated at all?
> >
> >Garry
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Chris Riccomini [mailto:criccomini@linkedin.com]
> >Sent: 25 February 2014 21:44
> >To: dev@samza.incubator.apache.org
> >Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Moving to Scala 2.10 as default, deprecating Scala
> >2.8 support
> >
> >Hey Jakob,
> >
> >Fair enough. I'm all for deleting code.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >Chris
> >
> >On 2/25/14 1:41 PM, "Jakob Homan" <jg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>No harm and the maintenance support tax is low. I just like to delete
> >>code. If no one speaks up that they're using it, is there any reason
> >>to keep it?
> >>
> >>
> >>On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Chris Riccomini
> >><cr...@linkedin.com>wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hey Jakob,
> >>>
> >>> I'm all for moving to 2.10 as the default. I also agree that we
> >>> should continue to support 2.9.
> >>>
> >>> Regarding 2.8 deletion, is there any harm to supporting it right now?
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Chris
> >>>
> >>> On 2/25/14 1:34 PM, "Jakob Homan" <jg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >Currently we support Scala 2.8, 2.9 and 2.10. 2.8 is ancient. 2.9
> >>> >is reasonable and, my guess is that 2.10 is the most common. Our
> >>> >default
> >>>is
> >>> >2.9.
> >>> >
> >>> >Since 2.10 is the most common, it may make sense to make the default
> >>>2.10.
> >>> >
> >>> >Is there anyone out there still relying on 2.8? Are there any
> >>>objections
> >>> >to removing support for it?
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >-----
> >No virus found in this message.
> >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> >Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3705/7121 - Release Date: 02/24/14
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Moving to Scala 2.10 as default, deprecating Scala
2.8 support
Posted by Chris Riccomini <cr...@linkedin.com>.
Hey Garry,
This would be super useful, if you want to dig into it.
JDK 7 is quickly becoming a high priority. We kind of need to support it.
:)
Cheers,
Chris
On 2/25/14 1:51 PM, "Garry Turkington" <g....@improvedigital.com>
wrote:
>Hi guys,
>
>I'm good with defaulting to 2.10 and deprecating 2.8 also.
>
>On a related topic SAMZA-16 (JDK 7 support) is looking long in the tooth
>and given JDK 6 EOL and JDK 8 imminence it'd be nice to validate on the
>platform. I did a few test builds of Samza on JDK 7 a while ago and found
>it was intermittently showing some test failures, maybe 1 build in 3.
>Happy to dig into this but curious if anyone else has investigated at all?
>
>Garry
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Chris Riccomini [mailto:criccomini@linkedin.com]
>Sent: 25 February 2014 21:44
>To: dev@samza.incubator.apache.org
>Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Moving to Scala 2.10 as default, deprecating Scala
>2.8 support
>
>Hey Jakob,
>
>Fair enough. I'm all for deleting code.
>
>Cheers,
>Chris
>
>On 2/25/14 1:41 PM, "Jakob Homan" <jg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>No harm and the maintenance support tax is low. I just like to delete
>>code. If no one speaks up that they're using it, is there any reason
>>to keep it?
>>
>>
>>On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Chris Riccomini
>><cr...@linkedin.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Hey Jakob,
>>>
>>> I'm all for moving to 2.10 as the default. I also agree that we
>>> should continue to support 2.9.
>>>
>>> Regarding 2.8 deletion, is there any harm to supporting it right now?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Chris
>>>
>>> On 2/25/14 1:34 PM, "Jakob Homan" <jg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Currently we support Scala 2.8, 2.9 and 2.10. 2.8 is ancient. 2.9
>>> >is reasonable and, my guess is that 2.10 is the most common. Our
>>> >default
>>>is
>>> >2.9.
>>> >
>>> >Since 2.10 is the most common, it may make sense to make the default
>>>2.10.
>>> >
>>> >Is there anyone out there still relying on 2.8? Are there any
>>>objections
>>> >to removing support for it?
>>>
>>>
>
>
>-----
>No virus found in this message.
>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3705/7121 - Release Date: 02/24/14
RE: [DISCUSS] Moving to Scala 2.10 as default, deprecating Scala
2.8 support
Posted by Garry Turkington <g....@improvedigital.com>.
Hi guys,
I'm good with defaulting to 2.10 and deprecating 2.8 also.
On a related topic SAMZA-16 (JDK 7 support) is looking long in the tooth and given JDK 6 EOL and JDK 8 imminence it'd be nice to validate on the platform. I did a few test builds of Samza on JDK 7 a while ago and found it was intermittently showing some test failures, maybe 1 build in 3. Happy to dig into this but curious if anyone else has investigated at all?
Garry
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Riccomini [mailto:criccomini@linkedin.com]
Sent: 25 February 2014 21:44
To: dev@samza.incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Moving to Scala 2.10 as default, deprecating Scala 2.8 support
Hey Jakob,
Fair enough. I'm all for deleting code.
Cheers,
Chris
On 2/25/14 1:41 PM, "Jakob Homan" <jg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>No harm and the maintenance support tax is low. I just like to delete
>code. If no one speaks up that they're using it, is there any reason
>to keep it?
>
>
>On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Chris Riccomini
><cr...@linkedin.com>wrote:
>
>> Hey Jakob,
>>
>> I'm all for moving to 2.10 as the default. I also agree that we
>> should continue to support 2.9.
>>
>> Regarding 2.8 deletion, is there any harm to supporting it right now?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Chris
>>
>> On 2/25/14 1:34 PM, "Jakob Homan" <jg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Currently we support Scala 2.8, 2.9 and 2.10. 2.8 is ancient. 2.9
>> >is reasonable and, my guess is that 2.10 is the most common. Our
>> >default
>>is
>> >2.9.
>> >
>> >Since 2.10 is the most common, it may make sense to make the default
>>2.10.
>> >
>> >Is there anyone out there still relying on 2.8? Are there any
>>objections
>> >to removing support for it?
>>
>>
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3705/7121 - Release Date: 02/24/14
Re: [DISCUSS] Moving to Scala 2.10 as default, deprecating Scala
2.8 support
Posted by Chris Riccomini <cr...@linkedin.com>.
Hey Jakob,
Fair enough. I'm all for deleting code.
Cheers,
Chris
On 2/25/14 1:41 PM, "Jakob Homan" <jg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>No harm and the maintenance support tax is low. I just like to delete
>code. If no one speaks up that they're using it, is there any reason to
>keep it?
>
>
>On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Chris Riccomini
><cr...@linkedin.com>wrote:
>
>> Hey Jakob,
>>
>> I'm all for moving to 2.10 as the default. I also agree that we should
>> continue to support 2.9.
>>
>> Regarding 2.8 deletion, is there any harm to supporting it right now?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Chris
>>
>> On 2/25/14 1:34 PM, "Jakob Homan" <jg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Currently we support Scala 2.8, 2.9 and 2.10. 2.8 is ancient. 2.9 is
>> >reasonable and, my guess is that 2.10 is the most common. Our default
>>is
>> >2.9.
>> >
>> >Since 2.10 is the most common, it may make sense to make the default
>>2.10.
>> >
>> >Is there anyone out there still relying on 2.8? Are there any
>>objections
>> >to removing support for it?
>>
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Moving to Scala 2.10 as default, deprecating Scala 2.8 support
Posted by Jakob Homan <jg...@gmail.com>.
No harm and the maintenance support tax is low. I just like to delete
code. If no one speaks up that they're using it, is there any reason to
keep it?
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Chris Riccomini <cr...@linkedin.com>wrote:
> Hey Jakob,
>
> I'm all for moving to 2.10 as the default. I also agree that we should
> continue to support 2.9.
>
> Regarding 2.8 deletion, is there any harm to supporting it right now?
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
> On 2/25/14 1:34 PM, "Jakob Homan" <jg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Currently we support Scala 2.8, 2.9 and 2.10. 2.8 is ancient. 2.9 is
> >reasonable and, my guess is that 2.10 is the most common. Our default is
> >2.9.
> >
> >Since 2.10 is the most common, it may make sense to make the default 2.10.
> >
> >Is there anyone out there still relying on 2.8? Are there any objections
> >to removing support for it?
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Moving to Scala 2.10 as default, deprecating Scala
2.8 support
Posted by Chris Riccomini <cr...@linkedin.com>.
Hey Jakob,
I'm all for moving to 2.10 as the default. I also agree that we should
continue to support 2.9.
Regarding 2.8 deletion, is there any harm to supporting it right now?
Cheers,
Chris
On 2/25/14 1:34 PM, "Jakob Homan" <jg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Currently we support Scala 2.8, 2.9 and 2.10. 2.8 is ancient. 2.9 is
>reasonable and, my guess is that 2.10 is the most common. Our default is
>2.9.
>
>Since 2.10 is the most common, it may make sense to make the default 2.10.
>
>Is there anyone out there still relying on 2.8? Are there any objections
>to removing support for it?