To follow up on this, I also reached out to Manu who was the only -1 vote. I can understand his concern about forcing people to stay on the 1.6 release if they can't upgrade Java. I suggested that we maintain the 1.6 line a bit longer than we otherwise would with critical bug fixes and patch releases. That seems like a reasonable compromise to me; if our recommendation is to stay on 1.6.x then we can keep that release line going if there are important problems.
I think that addressed Manu's concern and that we're in agreement to move forward. On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 2:09 PM Piotr Findeisen <piotr.findei...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi > > Thank you all for your participation. This is the summary of votes > > binding +1: 6 > binding -1: 0 > > non-binding +1: 10 > non-binding -1: 1 > > If i am not mistaken, this means we concluded the vote as 'yes' for > dropping Java 8 support in 1.7.0 release. > I wish we had unanimous decision, but I am aware this is not always > possible. > It was proposed to bundle this breaking change with 2.0 release, but that > already received some form of criticism in the other thread (`Dropping JDK > 8 support`). > At the same time, dropping 8 is required to move forward with full support > for 21, which apparently increasingly more things depend on. > > I will merge the relevant PR > <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/10518> tomorrow. > > Thank you! > Piotr > > > > On Wed, 31 Jul 2024 at 23:24, Daniel Weeks <dwe...@apache.org> wrote: > >> +1 (binding) >> >> On Sun, Jul 28, 2024 at 11:35 PM Huang-Hsiang Cheng >> <hua...@apple.com.invalid> wrote: >> >>> +1 (non-binding) >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Huang-Hsiang >>> >>> On Jul 27, 2024, at 12:42 AM, Steve Zhang >>> <hongyue_zh...@apple.com.INVALID> wrote: >>> >>> +1 (non-binding) >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Steve Zhang >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jul 26, 2024, at 9:15 AM, Amogh Jahagirdar <2am...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> +1 (non-binding) >>> >>> >>> >>> -- Ryan Blue Databricks
