+1 to have binaries for both versions in Maven and as build to download. 2015-10-26 17:11 GMT+01:00 Theodore Vasiloudis < theodoros.vasilou...@gmail.com>:
> +1 for having binaries, I'm working on a Spark application currently with > Scala 2.11 and having to rebuild everything when deploying e.g. to EC2 is a > pain. > > On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Ufuk Celebi <u...@apache.org> wrote: > > > I agree with Till, but is this something you want to address in this > > release already? > > > > I would postpone it to 1.0.0. > > > > – Ufuk > > > > > On 26 Oct 2015, at 16:17, Till Rohrmann <trohrm...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > I would be in favor of deploying also Scala 2.11 artifacts to Maven > since > > > more and more people will try out Flink with Scala 2.11. Having the > > > dependencies in the Maven repository makes it considerably easier for > > > people to get their Flink jobs running. > > > > > > Furthermore, I observed that people are not aware that our deployed > > > artifacts, e.g. flink-runtime, are built with Scala 2.10. As a > > consequence, > > > they mix flink dependencies with other dependencies pulling in Scala > 2.11 > > > and then they wonder that the program crashes. It would be, imho, > clearer > > > if all our dependencies which depend on a specific Scala version would > > have > > > the corresponding Scala suffix appended. > > > > > > Adding the 2.10 suffix would also spare us the hassle of upgrading to a > > > newer Scala version in the future, because then the artifacts wouldn't > > > share the same artifact name. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Till > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 4:04 PM, Maximilian Michels <m...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > >> Hi Flinksters, > > >> > > >> We have recently committed an easy way to change Flink's Scala > version. > > The > > >> question arises now whether we should ship Scala 2.11 as binaries and > > via > > >> Maven. For the rc0, I created all binaries twice, for Scala 2.10 and > > 2.11. > > >> However, I didn't create Maven artifacts. This follows our current > > shipping > > >> strategy where we only ship Hadoop1 and Hadoop 2.3.0 Maven > dependencies > > but > > >> additionally Hadoop 2.4, 2.6, 2.7 as binaries. > > >> > > >> Should we also upload Maven dependencies for Scala 2.11? > > >> > > >> If so, the next question arises: What version pattern should we have > for > > >> the Flink Scala 2.11 dependencies? For Hadoop, we append -hadoop1 to > the > > >> VERSION, e.g. artifactID=flink-core, version=0.9.1-hadoop1. > > >> > > >> However, it is common practice to append the suffix to the artifactID > of > > >> the Maven dependency, e.g. artifactID=flink-core_2.11, version=0.9.1. > > This > > >> has mostly historic reasons but is widely used. > > >> > > >> Whatever naming pattern we choose, it should be consistent. I would be > > in > > >> favor of changing our artifact names to contain the Hadoop and Scala > > >> version. This would also imply that all Scala dependent Maven modules > > >> receive a Scala suffix (also the default Scala 2.10 modules). > > >> > > >> Cheers, > > >> Max > > >> > > > > >
