+1 On 17 October 2017 at 16:36, Robert Bradshaw <[email protected]> wrote:
> +1 to removing Java 7 support, pending no major user outcry to the > contrary. > > In terms of versioning, I fall into the camp that this isn't > sufficiently incompatible to warrant a major version increase. > Semantic versioning is all about messaging, and upgrading the major > version so soon after GA for such a minor change would IMHO cause more > confusion that clarity. Hitting 3.0 should signal a major improvement > to Beam itself. > > On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Eugene Kirpichov <[email protected]> > wrote: > > +1 to removing Java 7 support. > > > > In terms of release 3.0, we can handle this two ways: > > - Wait until enough other potentially incompatible changes accumulate, do > > all of them, and call it a "3.0" release, so that 3.0 will truly differ > in a > > lot of incompatible and hopefully nice ways from 2.x. This might well > take a > > year or so. > > - Make a release in which Java 7 support is removed, and call it a "3.0" > > release just to signal the incompatibility, and other potentially > > incompatible changes will wait until "4.0" etc. > > > > I suppose the decision depends on whether we have a lot of other > > incompatible changes we would like to do, and whether we have any other > > truly great features enabled by those changes, or at least truly great > > features justifying increasing the major version number. If we go with > #1, > > I'd say, among the current work happening in Beam, portability comes to > mind > > as a sufficiently huge milestone, so maybe drop Java 7 in the same > release > > that offers a sufficient chunk of the portability work? > > > > (There's also a third path: declare that dropping Java7 support is not > > sufficiently "incompatible" to warrant a major version increase, because > > people don't have to rewrite their code but only switch their compiler > > version, and people who already use a Java8 compiler won't even notice. > This > > path could perhaps be considered if we had evidence that switching to a > Beam > > release without Java7 support would require 0 work for an overwhelming > > majority of users) > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 3:34 PM Randal Moore <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> +1 > >> > >> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 5:21 PM Raghu Angadi <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> > >>> +1. > >>> > >>> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 2:11 PM, David McNeill <[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> The final version of Beam that supports Java 7 should be clearly > stated > >>>> in the docs, so those stuck on old production infrastructure for > other java > >>>> app dependencies know where to stop upgrading. > >>>> > >>>> David McNeill > >>>> 021 721 015 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 18 October 2017 at 05:16, Ismaël Mejía <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> We have discussed recently in the developer mailing list about the > >>>>> idea of removing support for Java 7 on Beam. There are multiple > >>>>> reasons for this: > >>>>> > >>>>> - Java 7 has not received public updates for almost two years and > most > >>>>> companies are moving / have already moved to Java 8. > >>>>> - A good amount of the systems Beam users rely on have decided to > drop > >>>>> Java 7 support, e.g. Spark, Flink, Elasticsearch, even Hadoop plans > to > >>>>> do it on version 3. > >>>>> - Most Big data distributions and Cloud managed Spark/Hadoop services > >>>>> have already moved to Java 8. > >>>>> - Recent versions of core libraries Beam uses are moving to be Java 8 > >>>>> only (or mostly), e.g. Guava, Google Auto, etc. > >>>>> - Java 8 has some nice features that can make Beam code nicer e.g. > >>>>> lambdas, streams. > >>>>> > >>>>> Considering that Beam is a ‘recent’ project we expect users to be > >>>>> already using Java 8. However we wanted first to ask the opinion of > >>>>> the Beam users on this subject. It could be the case that some of the > >>>>> users are still dealing with some old cluster running on Java 7 or > >>>>> have another argument to keep the Java 7 compatibility. > >>>>> > >>>>> So, please vote: > >>>>> +1 Yes, go ahead and move Beam support to Java 8. > >>>>> 0 Do whatever you want. I don’t have a preference. > >>>>> -1 Please keep Java 7 compatibility (if possible add your argument to > >>>>> keep supporting for Java 7). > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > > >
