Changing Scala Version to 2.11.x

[Aljoscha Krettek-2]

Hi,
what do you guys thing about bumping to 2.11.x. Scala 2.10.x has a nasty
bug that has been biting me in the arse for years. Now that I'm trying to
bring the Scala API up to feature parity with the Java API I'm again
wrestling with the bug. (Something to do with type checking, which keeps me
from using an elegant solution using implicits. I can elaborate if you
want.)

This would require some changes in the existing Scala code but they should
be minor. Also, Scala is still a young and fast-moving language, so people
should be used to bumping Scala versions often. By the way, 2.11.0 is from
April 2014 and they had to minor releases since, so we are up to 2.11.2 now.

What do you think?

Cheers,
Aljoscha

[Stephan Ewen]

+1
 Am 23.08.2014 17:16 schrieb "Aljoscha Krettek" <[hidden email]>:

> Hi,
> what do you guys thing about bumping to 2.11.x. Scala 2.10.x has a nasty
> bug that has been biting me in the arse for years. Now that I'm trying to
> bring the Scala API up to feature parity with the Java API I'm again
> wrestling with the bug. (Something to do with type checking, which keeps me
> from using an elegant solution using implicits. I can elaborate if you
> want.)
>
> This would require some changes in the existing Scala code but they should
> be minor. Also, Scala is still a young and fast-moving language, so people
> should be used to bumping Scala versions often. By the way, 2.11.0 is from
> April 2014 and they had to minor releases since, so we are up to 2.11.2
> now.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Cheers,
> Aljoscha
>

[Sebastian Schelter]

What does this mean from a user perspective? I'm not sure whether most
companies are already moving to Scala 2.11. I know from one large
company that is only conducting the move from 2.9 to 2.10 right now.

Best,
Sebastian

On 08/23/2014 05:22 PM, Stephan Ewen wrote:

> +1
>   Am 23.08.2014 17:16 schrieb "Aljoscha Krettek" <[hidden email]>:
>
>> Hi,
>> what do you guys thing about bumping to 2.11.x. Scala 2.10.x has a nasty
>> bug that has been biting me in the arse for years. Now that I'm trying to
>> bring the Scala API up to feature parity with the Java API I'm again
>> wrestling with the bug. (Something to do with type checking, which keeps me
>> from using an elegant solution using implicits. I can elaborate if you
>> want.)
>>
>> This would require some changes in the existing Scala code but they should
>> be minor. Also, Scala is still a young and fast-moving language, so people
>> should be used to bumping Scala versions often. By the way, 2.11.0 is from
>> April 2014 and they had to minor releases since, so we are up to 2.11.2
>> now.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Aljoscha
>>
>

[Aljoscha Krettek-2]

It would require users to move to 2.11 as well. So this might not be such a
good move right now, but that is why I'm asking here.

Cheers,
Aljoscha


On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 9:40 PM, Sebastian Schelter <[hidden email]> wrote:

> What does this mean from a user perspective? I'm not sure whether most
> companies are already moving to Scala 2.11. I know from one large company
> that is only conducting the move from 2.9 to 2.10 right now.
>
> Best,
> Sebastian
>
>
> On 08/23/2014 05:22 PM, Stephan Ewen wrote:
>
>> +1
>>   Am 23.08.2014 17:16 schrieb "Aljoscha Krettek" <[hidden email]>:
>>
>>  Hi,
>>> what do you guys thing about bumping to 2.11.x. Scala 2.10.x has a nasty
>>> bug that has been biting me in the arse for years. Now that I'm trying to
>>> bring the Scala API up to feature parity with the Java API I'm again
>>> wrestling with the bug. (Something to do with type checking, which keeps
>>> me
>>> from using an elegant solution using implicits. I can elaborate if you
>>> want.)
>>>
>>> This would require some changes in the existing Scala code but they
>>> should
>>> be minor. Also, Scala is still a young and fast-moving language, so
>>> people
>>> should be used to bumping Scala versions often. By the way, 2.11.0 is
>>> from
>>> April 2014 and they had to minor releases since, so we are up to 2.11.2
>>> now.
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Aljoscha
>>>
>>>
>>
>

[Sean Owen-2]

My £0.02 -- yes it's an incompatible change, and I think you should
move to 2.11 sooner than later. It will get harder as time goes on and
eventually you'll have to maintain some 2.xx support after moving
ahead for some existing users. You have a load more latitude in
incubation. Move fast / break things -- for now.

On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Aljoscha Krettek <[hidden email]> wrote:

> It would require users to move to 2.11 as well. So this might not be such a
> good move right now, but that is why I'm asking here.
>
> Cheers,
> Aljoscha
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 9:40 PM, Sebastian Schelter <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> What does this mean from a user perspective? I'm not sure whether most
>> companies are already moving to Scala 2.11. I know from one large company
>> that is only conducting the move from 2.9 to 2.10 right now.
>>
>> Best,
>> Sebastian
>>
>>
>> On 08/23/2014 05:22 PM, Stephan Ewen wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>>   Am 23.08.2014 17:16 schrieb "Aljoscha Krettek" <[hidden email]>:
>>>
>>>  Hi,
>>>> what do you guys thing about bumping to 2.11.x. Scala 2.10.x has a nasty
>>>> bug that has been biting me in the arse for years. Now that I'm trying to
>>>> bring the Scala API up to feature parity with the Java API I'm again
>>>> wrestling with the bug. (Something to do with type checking, which keeps
>>>> me
>>>> from using an elegant solution using implicits. I can elaborate if you
>>>> want.)
>>>>
>>>> This would require some changes in the existing Scala code but they
>>>> should
>>>> be minor. Also, Scala is still a young and fast-moving language, so
>>>> people
>>>> should be used to bumping Scala versions often. By the way, 2.11.0 is
>>>> from
>>>> April 2014 and they had to minor releases since, so we are up to 2.11.2
>>>> now.
>>>>
>>>> What do you think?
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Aljoscha
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>

[Till Rohrmann]

+1


On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Sean Owen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> My £0.02 -- yes it's an incompatible change, and I think you should
> move to 2.11 sooner than later. It will get harder as time goes on and
> eventually you'll have to maintain some 2.xx support after moving
> ahead for some existing users. You have a load more latitude in
> incubation. Move fast / break things -- for now.
>
> On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Aljoscha Krettek <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > It would require users to move to 2.11 as well. So this might not be
> such a
> > good move right now, but that is why I'm asking here.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Aljoscha
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 9:40 PM, Sebastian Schelter <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> What does this mean from a user perspective? I'm not sure whether most
> >> companies are already moving to Scala 2.11. I know from one large
> company
> >> that is only conducting the move from 2.9 to 2.10 right now.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Sebastian
> >>
> >>
> >> On 08/23/2014 05:22 PM, Stephan Ewen wrote:
> >>
> >>> +1
> >>>   Am 23.08.2014 17:16 schrieb "Aljoscha Krettek" <[hidden email]
> >:
> >>>
> >>>  Hi,
> >>>> what do you guys thing about bumping to 2.11.x. Scala 2.10.x has a
> nasty
> >>>> bug that has been biting me in the arse for years. Now that I'm
> trying to
> >>>> bring the Scala API up to feature parity with the Java API I'm again
> >>>> wrestling with the bug. (Something to do with type checking, which
> keeps
> >>>> me
> >>>> from using an elegant solution using implicits. I can elaborate if you
> >>>> want.)
> >>>>
> >>>> This would require some changes in the existing Scala code but they
> >>>> should
> >>>> be minor. Also, Scala is still a young and fast-moving language, so
> >>>> people
> >>>> should be used to bumping Scala versions often. By the way, 2.11.0 is
> >>>> from
> >>>> April 2014 and they had to minor releases since, so we are up to
> 2.11.2
> >>>> now.
> >>>>
> >>>> What do you think?
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>> Aljoscha
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
>

[Sebastian Schelter-2]

Going to 2.11 also restricts user to libraries that already have a 2.11
version available. Just my 2 cents.

-sebastian
Am 24.08.2014 11:31 schrieb "Till Rohrmann" <[hidden email]>:

> +1
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Sean Owen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > My £0.02 -- yes it's an incompatible change, and I think you should
> > move to 2.11 sooner than later. It will get harder as time goes on and
> > eventually you'll have to maintain some 2.xx support after moving
> > ahead for some existing users. You have a load more latitude in
> > incubation. Move fast / break things -- for now.
> >
> > On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Aljoscha Krettek <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > It would require users to move to 2.11 as well. So this might not be
> > such a
> > > good move right now, but that is why I'm asking here.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Aljoscha
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 9:40 PM, Sebastian Schelter <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> What does this mean from a user perspective? I'm not sure whether most
> > >> companies are already moving to Scala 2.11. I know from one large
> > company
> > >> that is only conducting the move from 2.9 to 2.10 right now.
> > >>
> > >> Best,
> > >> Sebastian
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 08/23/2014 05:22 PM, Stephan Ewen wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> +1
> > >>>   Am 23.08.2014 17:16 schrieb "Aljoscha Krettek" <
> [hidden email]
> > >:
> > >>>
> > >>>  Hi,
> > >>>> what do you guys thing about bumping to 2.11.x. Scala 2.10.x has a
> > nasty
> > >>>> bug that has been biting me in the arse for years. Now that I'm
> > trying to
> > >>>> bring the Scala API up to feature parity with the Java API I'm again
> > >>>> wrestling with the bug. (Something to do with type checking, which
> > keeps
> > >>>> me
> > >>>> from using an elegant solution using implicits. I can elaborate if
> you
> > >>>> want.)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> This would require some changes in the existing Scala code but they
> > >>>> should
> > >>>> be minor. Also, Scala is still a young and fast-moving language, so
> > >>>> people
> > >>>> should be used to bumping Scala versions often. By the way, 2.11.0
> is
> > >>>> from
> > >>>> April 2014 and they had to minor releases since, so we are up to
> > 2.11.2
> > >>>> now.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> What do you think?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Cheers,
> > >>>> Aljoscha
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
>

[Aljoscha Krettek-2]

Ok, I think we should stick with 2.10 then for the time being. I found
another way to implement it and the Scala API will be very lean once I'm
done, so it shouldn't be to hard to move to 2.11 once we have to.

Aljoscha


On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 9:18 PM, Sebastian Schelter <[hidden email]
> wrote:

> Going to 2.11 also restricts user to libraries that already have a 2.11
> version available. Just my 2 cents.
>
> -sebastian
> Am 24.08.2014 11:31 schrieb "Till Rohrmann" <[hidden email]>:
>
> > +1
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Sean Owen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > My £0.02 -- yes it's an incompatible change, and I think you should
> > > move to 2.11 sooner than later. It will get harder as time goes on and
> > > eventually you'll have to maintain some 2.xx support after moving
> > > ahead for some existing users. You have a load more latitude in
> > > incubation. Move fast / break things -- for now.
> > >
> > > On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Aljoscha Krettek <
> [hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > It would require users to move to 2.11 as well. So this might not be
> > > such a
> > > > good move right now, but that is why I'm asking here.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Aljoscha
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 9:40 PM, Sebastian Schelter <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> What does this mean from a user perspective? I'm not sure whether
> most
> > > >> companies are already moving to Scala 2.11. I know from one large
> > > company
> > > >> that is only conducting the move from 2.9 to 2.10 right now.
> > > >>
> > > >> Best,
> > > >> Sebastian
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On 08/23/2014 05:22 PM, Stephan Ewen wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> +1
> > > >>>   Am 23.08.2014 17:16 schrieb "Aljoscha Krettek" <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>  Hi,
> > > >>>> what do you guys thing about bumping to 2.11.x. Scala 2.10.x has a
> > > nasty
> > > >>>> bug that has been biting me in the arse for years. Now that I'm
> > > trying to
> > > >>>> bring the Scala API up to feature parity with the Java API I'm
> again
> > > >>>> wrestling with the bug. (Something to do with type checking, which
> > > keeps
> > > >>>> me
> > > >>>> from using an elegant solution using implicits. I can elaborate if
> > you
> > > >>>> want.)
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> This would require some changes in the existing Scala code but
> they
> > > >>>> should
> > > >>>> be minor. Also, Scala is still a young and fast-moving language,
> so
> > > >>>> people
> > > >>>> should be used to bumping Scala versions often. By the way, 2.11.0
> > is
> > > >>>> from
> > > >>>> April 2014 and they had to minor releases since, so we are up to
> > > 2.11.2
> > > >>>> now.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> What do you think?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Cheers,
> > > >>>> Aljoscha
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
>

[Ufuk Celebi-2]

Nice to hear Aljoscha. :)

BTW Is there a issue for the stuff you are doing? I think it would be great
for future maintainers to have a small description of the problems you have
encountered thus far  ;-)


On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 8:53 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Ok, I think we should stick with 2.10 then for the time being. I found
> another way to implement it and the Scala API will be very lean once I'm
> done, so it shouldn't be to hard to move to 2.11 once we have to.
>
> Aljoscha
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 9:18 PM, Sebastian Schelter <
> [hidden email]
> > wrote:
>
> > Going to 2.11 also restricts user to libraries that already have a 2.11
> > version available. Just my 2 cents.
> >
> > -sebastian
> > Am 24.08.2014 11:31 schrieb "Till Rohrmann" <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Sean Owen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > My £0.02 -- yes it's an incompatible change, and I think you should
> > > > move to 2.11 sooner than later. It will get harder as time goes on
> and
> > > > eventually you'll have to maintain some 2.xx support after moving
> > > > ahead for some existing users. You have a load more latitude in
> > > > incubation. Move fast / break things -- for now.
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Aljoscha Krettek <
> > [hidden email]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > It would require users to move to 2.11 as well. So this might not
> be
> > > > such a
> > > > > good move right now, but that is why I'm asking here.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > Aljoscha
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 9:40 PM, Sebastian Schelter <
> [hidden email]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> What does this mean from a user perspective? I'm not sure whether
> > most
> > > > >> companies are already moving to Scala 2.11. I know from one large
> > > > company
> > > > >> that is only conducting the move from 2.9 to 2.10 right now.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Best,
> > > > >> Sebastian
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On 08/23/2014 05:22 PM, Stephan Ewen wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> +1
> > > > >>>   Am 23.08.2014 17:16 schrieb "Aljoscha Krettek" <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > >:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>  Hi,
> > > > >>>> what do you guys thing about bumping to 2.11.x. Scala 2.10.x
> has a
> > > > nasty
> > > > >>>> bug that has been biting me in the arse for years. Now that I'm
> > > > trying to
> > > > >>>> bring the Scala API up to feature parity with the Java API I'm
> > again
> > > > >>>> wrestling with the bug. (Something to do with type checking,
> which
> > > > keeps
> > > > >>>> me
> > > > >>>> from using an elegant solution using implicits. I can elaborate
> if
> > > you
> > > > >>>> want.)
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> This would require some changes in the existing Scala code but
> > they
> > > > >>>> should
> > > > >>>> be minor. Also, Scala is still a young and fast-moving language,
> > so
> > > > >>>> people
> > > > >>>> should be used to bumping Scala versions often. By the way,
> 2.11.0
> > > is
> > > > >>>> from
> > > > >>>> April 2014 and they had to minor releases since, so we are up to
> > > > 2.11.2
> > > > >>>> now.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> What do you think?
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Cheers,
> > > > >>>> Aljoscha
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[Aljoscha Krettek-2]

Yes, there is this: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-641


On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Ufuk Celebi <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Nice to hear Aljoscha. :)
>
> BTW Is there a issue for the stuff you are doing? I think it would be great
> for future maintainers to have a small description of the problems you have
> encountered thus far  ;-)
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 8:53 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Ok, I think we should stick with 2.10 then for the time being. I found
> > another way to implement it and the Scala API will be very lean once I'm
> > done, so it shouldn't be to hard to move to 2.11 once we have to.
> >
> > Aljoscha
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 9:18 PM, Sebastian Schelter <
> > [hidden email]
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > Going to 2.11 also restricts user to libraries that already have a 2.11
> > > version available. Just my 2 cents.
> > >
> > > -sebastian
> > > Am 24.08.2014 11:31 schrieb "Till Rohrmann" <[hidden email]>:
> > >
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Sean Owen <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > My £0.02 -- yes it's an incompatible change, and I think you should
> > > > > move to 2.11 sooner than later. It will get harder as time goes on
> > and
> > > > > eventually you'll have to maintain some 2.xx support after moving
> > > > > ahead for some existing users. You have a load more latitude in
> > > > > incubation. Move fast / break things -- for now.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Aljoscha Krettek <
> > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > It would require users to move to 2.11 as well. So this might not
> > be
> > > > > such a
> > > > > > good move right now, but that is why I'm asking here.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > Aljoscha
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 9:40 PM, Sebastian Schelter <
> > [hidden email]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> What does this mean from a user perspective? I'm not sure
> whether
> > > most
> > > > > >> companies are already moving to Scala 2.11. I know from one
> large
> > > > > company
> > > > > >> that is only conducting the move from 2.9 to 2.10 right now.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Best,
> > > > > >> Sebastian
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On 08/23/2014 05:22 PM, Stephan Ewen wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> +1
> > > > > >>>   Am 23.08.2014 17:16 schrieb "Aljoscha Krettek" <
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>  Hi,
> > > > > >>>> what do you guys thing about bumping to 2.11.x. Scala 2.10.x
> > has a
> > > > > nasty
> > > > > >>>> bug that has been biting me in the arse for years. Now that
> I'm
> > > > > trying to
> > > > > >>>> bring the Scala API up to feature parity with the Java API I'm
> > > again
> > > > > >>>> wrestling with the bug. (Something to do with type checking,
> > which
> > > > > keeps
> > > > > >>>> me
> > > > > >>>> from using an elegant solution using implicits. I can
> elaborate
> > if
> > > > you
> > > > > >>>> want.)
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> This would require some changes in the existing Scala code but
> > > they
> > > > > >>>> should
> > > > > >>>> be minor. Also, Scala is still a young and fast-moving
> language,
> > > so
> > > > > >>>> people
> > > > > >>>> should be used to bumping Scala versions often. By the way,
> > 2.11.0
> > > > is
> > > > > >>>> from
> > > > > >>>> April 2014 and they had to minor releases since, so we are up
> to
> > > > > 2.11.2
> > > > > >>>> now.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> What do you think?
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Cheers,
> > > > > >>>> Aljoscha
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>