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 <[email protected]>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" <[email protected]> > 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:[email protected]] > >Sent: 25 February 2014 21:44 > >To: [email protected] > >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" <[email protected]> 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 > >><[email protected]>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" <[email protected]> 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 > >
