If there are no objections from dev@, I'll try to proceed with an upgrade to the latest version <https://jira.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-6895> (2.10.1).
Kenn, I've found your issue <https://jira.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-5827> for joda-time vendoring, is it still relevant? This might cause a breaking change as it is part of user facing API. D. On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 5:44 PM Kenneth Knowles <[email protected]> wrote: > +dev@ > > I don't know of any special reason we are using an old version. > > Kenn > > On Thu, Mar 21, 2019, 09:38 Ismaël Mejía <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Does anyone have any context on why we have such an old version of >> Joda time (2.4 released on 2014!) and if there is any possible issue >> upgrading it? If not maybe we can try to upgrade it.. >> >> On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 5:35 PM Ismaël Mejía <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > Mmmm interesting issue. There is also a plan to use a vendored version >> > of joda-time not sure on the progress on that one. >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-5827 >> > >> > For Beam 3 that's the idea but so far there is not at ETA for Beam 3. >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-5530 >> > >> > On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 4:15 PM rahul patwari >> > <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > >> > > Hi David, >> > > >> > > The only incompatibility we have come across is this: >> > > We have some timestamp format conversions in our project, where we >> are converting from a timestamp format to another. >> > > >> > > With joda-time 2.4: >> > > If we convert "2019-03-15 13:56:12" which is in "yyyy-MM-dd HH:mm:ss" >> format, to "hh:mm:ss yy-MMM-dd z" format, the converted value is "01:56:12 >> 19-Mar-15 -07:00". >> > > >> > > Whereas with joda-time 2.9.3: >> > > If we convert "2019-03-15 13:56:12" which is in "yyyy-MM-dd HH:mm:ss" >> format, to "hh:mm:ss yy-MMM-dd z" format, the converted value is "01:56:12 >> 19-Mar-15 PDT". >> > > >> > > The javadoc for both the versions doesn't seem different though, for >> 'z' DateTimeFormat. >> > > >> > > Even though the javadoc says - Zone names: Time zone names ('z') >> cannot be parsed for both the versions, we are able to parse it in >> joda-time 2.9.3. >> > > >> > > Also, joda-time will be replaced with java time with Beam 3? >> > > >> > > Thanks, >> > > Rahul >> > > >> > > On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 5:37 PM David Morávek < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> > >> >> > >> Hello Rahul, are there any incompatibilities you are running into >> with spark version? These versions should be backward compatible. >> > >> >> > >> For jodatime doc: >> > >> The main public API will remain backwards compatible for both source >> and binary in the 2.x stream. >> > >> >> > >> This means you should be able to safely use Spark's version. >> > >> >> > >> D. >> > >> >> > >> On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 5:45 AM rahul patwari < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> > >>> >> > >>> Hi Ismael, >> > >>> >> > >>> We are using Beam with Spark Runner and Spark 2.4 has joda-time >> 2.9.3 as a dependency. So, we have used joda-time 2.9.3 in our shaded >> artifact set. As Beam has joda-time 2.4 as a dependency, I was wondering >> whether it would break anything in Beam. >> > >>> >> > >>> Will joda-time be replaced with java time in Beam 3? What is the >> expected release date of Beam 3? >> > >>> >> > >>> Thanks, >> > >>> Rahul >> > >>> >> > >>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 7:23 PM Ismaël Mejía <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >>>> >> > >>>> Hello, >> > >>>> >> > >>>> The long term goal would be to get rid of joda-time but that won't >> > >>>> happen until Beam 3. >> > >>>> Any 'particular' reason or motivation to push the upgrade? >> > >>>> >> > >>>> Regards, >> > >>>> Ismaël >> > >>>> >> > >>>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 11:53 AM rahul patwari >> > >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> > Hi, >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> > Is there a plan to upgrade the dependency version of joda-time >> to 2.9.3 or latest version? >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> > Thanks, >> > >>>> > Rahul >> >
