I'm in favor of ending support for Java 6. We should also articulate a policy on how long we want to support current and future versions of Java after Oracle declares them EOL (Java 7 will be in that bucket in a matter of days).
Punya On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 1:18 PM shane knapp <skn...@berkeley.edu> wrote: > something to keep in mind: we can easily support java 6 for the build > environment, particularly if there's a definite EOL. > > i'd like to fix our java versioning 'problem', and this could be a big > instigator... right now we're hackily setting java_home in test invocation > on jenkins, which really isn't the best. if i decide, within jenkins, to > reconfigure every build to 'do the right thing' WRT java version, then i > will clean up the old mess and pay down on some technical debt. > > or i can just install java 6 and we use that as JAVA_HOME on a > build-by-build basis. > > this will be a few days of prep and another morning-long downtime if i do > the right thing (within jenkins), and only a couple of hours the hacky way > (system level). > > either way, we can test on java 6. :) > > On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Koert Kuipers <ko...@tresata.com> wrote: > > > nicholas started it! :) > > > > for java 6 i would have said the same thing about 1 year ago: it is > foolish > > to drop it. but i think the time is right about now. > > about half our clients are on java 7 and the other half have active plans > > to migrate to it within 6 months. > > > > On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 3:57 PM, Reynold Xin <r...@databricks.com> > wrote: > > > > > Guys thanks for chiming in, but please focus on Java here. Python is an > > > entirely separate issue. > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 12:53 PM, Koert Kuipers <ko...@tresata.com> > > wrote: > > > > > >> i am not sure eol means much if it is still actively used. we have a > lot > > >> of clients with centos 5 (for which we still support python 2.4 in > some > > >> form or another, fun!). most of them are on centos 6, which means > python > > >> 2.6. by cutting out python 2.6 you would cut out the majority of the > > actual > > >> clusters i am aware of. unless you intention is to truly make > something > > >> academic i dont think that is wise. > > >> > > >> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Nicholas Chammas < > > >> nicholas.cham...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > >>> (On that note, I think Python 2.6 should be next on the chopping > block > > >>> sometime later this year, but that’s for another thread.) > > >>> > > >>> (To continue the parenthetical, Python 2.6 was in fact EOL-ed in > > October > > >>> of > > >>> 2013. <https://www.python.org/download/releases/2.6.9/>) > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 3:18 PM Nicholas Chammas < > > >>> nicholas.cham...@gmail.com> > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> > I understand the concern about cutting out users who still use Java > > 6, > > >>> and > > >>> > I don't have numbers about how many people are still using Java 6. > > >>> > > > >>> > But I want to say at a high level that I support deprecating older > > >>> > versions of stuff to reduce our maintenance burden and let us use > > more > > >>> > modern patterns in our code. > > >>> > > > >>> > Maintenance always costs way more than initial development over the > > >>> > lifetime of a project, and for that reason "anti-support" is just > as > > >>> > important as support. > > >>> > > > >>> > (On that note, I think Python 2.6 should be next on the chopping > > block > > >>> > sometime later this year, but that's for another thread.) > > >>> > > > >>> > Nick > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 3:03 PM Reynold Xin <r...@databricks.com> > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > > >>> >> This has been discussed a few times in the past, but now Oracle > has > > >>> ended > > >>> >> support for Java 6 for over a year, I wonder if we should just > drop > > >>> Java 6 > > >>> >> support. > > >>> >> > > >>> >> There is one outstanding issue Tom has brought to my attention: > > >>> PySpark on > > >>> >> YARN doesn't work well with Java 7/8, but we have an outstanding > > pull > > >>> >> request to fix that. > > >>> >> > > >>> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-6869 > > >>> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-1920 > > >>> >> > > >>> > > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > > > > >
