apache
[DOCS]Fix specified java versions for spark 3.5 in `python/docs/source/getting_started/install.rst`
What changes were proposed in this pull request?
Documentation change: the JAVA versions mentioned on the getting_started page of PySpark 3.5 are corrected (https://spark.apache.org/docs/3.5.3/api/python/getting_started/install.html#dependencies).
Why are the changes needed?
The original description "PySpark requires Java 8 or later" is incorrect since 3.5 does not support java prior to 8u371 anymore and the latest supported version is 17, the downloading page (https://spark.apache.org/docs/3.5.3/#downloading) however, does correctly state this. I thus corrected the mentioned java versions.
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
Yes documentation fix
How was this patch tested?
Manually
Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?
No
The following is mentioned on the downloadings page (https://spark.apache.org/docs/3.5.3/#downloading)
Java 8 prior to version 8u371 support is deprecated as of Spark 3.5.0
For some reason, I misread this and was under the impression that support for Java 8 was deprecated in its entirety as of 3.5.0.
I added a new commit where I updated the documentation and included Java 8 back in, with an exception for versions prior to 8u371.
Current changes are fine to me, but please do not disrupt the template for the [r description, every item must be filled out, and the title of the pr should also adhere to the standard format(can refer to https://spark.apache.org/contributing.html). And are there any other cases where the description of Java 8 versions is not accurate?
Apologies, I updated the PR's title and description, reincorporating the template. If the initial removal of the template is causing issues, I can also close this PR and reopen one with the same changes. If the title/description is still not up to standard, I'm happy to change it to meet the requirements.
I also enabled workflows on my repository, which was causing the build to fail.
Lastly, to answer your question, I haven't run into any cases thus far where the description of Java 8 version is inaccurate.