Thanks for the heads-up. There's only 3 days remaining until the formal end of this vote, and so far it seems conclusively in favor of dropping Java 7.
On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 4:35 PM Ben Sidhom <[email protected]> wrote: > Flink will be dropping Java 7 support in 1.5.0 (Java 8 is required for > Scala 2.12+): https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-5005. This is > another bump in favor of setting Java 8 as the project default. We'll > eventually need to switch the Flink runner if we want it to stay up to date. > > On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 2:40 PM, Eugene Kirpichov <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Oh, sorry for the misunderstanding: I didn't mean to suggest to actually >> use confidence intervals, I added that information just as a curiosity. I >> agree that we should make the decision based on the explicit % of votes. >> >> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 4:17 PM Kenneth Knowles <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> -user list for this >>> >>> FWIW confidence intervals were not mentioned before the poll was >>> launched, but in fact it was pretty explicitly just votes <= 5%. >>> >>> If we require that the 95% confidence interval falls under 5% we either >>> need 2000 respondents (not going to happen) at current proportions or for a >>> more reasonable 300 respondents the actual proportion would be ~2.3% which >>> is 7 votes, while we already have 9 votes. In other words, the poll is >>> already effectively done if that is the standard. >>> >>> But I would favor tilting the bias the other way. I'm not just trying to >>> make the data fit the desired conclusion. If the original proposal had >>> talked about confidence intervals, or the implied result that we keep Java >>> 7 support for 3% of responses (out of expected ~500 or less) I would have >>> said the balance was off. >>> >>> Kenn >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Eugene Kirpichov <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Intermediate update: right now it's 219 votes on Twitter (and 0 on this >>>> thread: seems that people find Twitter a more convenient medium!), with 96% >>>> who are either on Java 8 or can easily switch, vs. 4% who can not easily >>>> switch. >>>> >>>> Using a proportion confidence interval calculator, so far we're looking >>>> at between 1.9 and 7.7% of users (at 95% confidence) needing Java 7 support >>>> :) >>>> >>>> Willing users can help gather more votes by RT'ing the poll or chiming >>>> in on this thread! >>>> >>>> So: for now we don't yet have enough confidence that Java 7 support can >>>> be dropped from the SDK (to remind, we'll conclude the vote on January 7th; >>>> since people so overwhelmingly vote on Twitter, we may consider doing 3 >>>> more rounds of the same poll?..), however: >>>> - It may be enough confidence to resolve to *build* the Beam SDK using >>>> JDK8 (at Java 7 source language level), which is something +Ismaël >>>> Mejía <[email protected]> and +Daniel Oliveira <[email protected]> >>>> once >>>> requested as part of building Java 9 support. I suspect that the sets >>>> "users who need to build their own Beam SDK" and "users who can not upgrade >>>> to Java 8" have a vanishingly small intersection. >>>> - Then, we may consider also start building *tests* at Java 8 language >>>> level, which will give the bulk of the benefit of encouraging >>>> Java8-friendly APIs. >>>> Thoughts on the above? >>>> >>>> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 6:22 PM Eugene Kirpichov <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> A Twitter poll has been sent out too >>>>> https://twitter.com/ApacheBeam/status/938926195910905857 >>>>> However, due to limitations of Twitter it can only be open for 7 days. >>>>> I encourage people who are late to the poll to comment on this thread >>>>> instead. >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 3:50 PM Eugene Kirpichov <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Followup: we would like to keep this poll open for 2 weeks, however >>>>>> some people have expressed concern that this is too short. >>>>>> Let us keep this poll open for 1 month starting today. So far the >>>>>> agreed-upon decision has been to move forward with the plan if fewer than >>>>>> 5% of all respondents choose option 3. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 3:48 PM Eugene Kirpichov <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> This is a follow-up on a previous similar thread >>>>>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/2e1890c62d9f022f09b20e9f12f130fe9f1042e391979087f725d2e0@%3Cuser.beam.apache.org%3E >>>>>>> in >>>>>>> which the community consistently expressed support for transitioning >>>>>>> Beam >>>>>>> Java to Java8-only. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Now that the release of Beam 2.2.0 has completed, we are considering >>>>>>> performing this change specifically in the immediate next release: Beam >>>>>>> 2.3.0, i.e. dropping support for Java 7 without a bump in the major >>>>>>> version >>>>>>> of Beam. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The reasons for switching to Java 8 in general are considered in the >>>>>>> thread above. >>>>>>> The reasons in favor of making the switch in Beam 2.3.0 are as >>>>>>> follows: >>>>>>> - It is believed that usage of Java 7 in production is already >>>>>>> vanishingly small. >>>>>>> - Since Java 7 has not been receiving even security updates for >>>>>>> years, helping perpetuate its usage would be a bad idea >>>>>>> - A major version bump is a major step and would likely happen only >>>>>>> after a large number of other major changes in Beam accumulate - i.e. >>>>>>> many >>>>>>> months. Maintaining Java 7 compatibility for that long would have costs, >>>>>>> including the awkward possibility of switching Beam to Java 8 after Java >>>>>>> 8's end of life (September 2018 AFAIK) >>>>>>> - Updating to Java 8 would lead to Beam more quickly gaining more >>>>>>> Java8-friendly APIs, because Beam SDK authors and contributors would >>>>>>> have >>>>>>> more liberty, more responsibility and more experience with working in >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> context of Java8. Delaying until Beam 3.0 would delay this as well. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> With that in mind, we'd like to poll the Beam community to gather >>>>>>> information about usage of Java 7 and Java 8 in production. Please vote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Option 1. I am already using only Java 8+ for building my production >>>>>>> Beam code. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Option 2. I am using Java 7 for building my production Beam code, >>>>>>> but I would have no trouble with the switch to Java 8 [e.g. my >>>>>>> transition >>>>>>> to Java 8 would be easy and/or I don't expect that I'll have strong >>>>>>> reasons >>>>>>> to upgrade to Beam 2.3 anyway]. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Option 3. I am using Java 7 for building my production Beam code, >>>>>>> and dropping Java 7 would be a blocker or hindrance to adopting the new >>>>>>> release for me [e.g. I expect that I'll have strong reasons to update to >>>>>>> Beam 2.3, but I expect that it will be difficult because of lack of >>>>>>> Java 7 >>>>>>> support] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> > > > -- > -Ben >
