+1 to 1.6
Julius
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 2:36 AM, Matthew Pocock
wrote:
> My vote (not that I have one) would be for 1.6, and to keep 2.0 as the
> release when the breaking changes are introduced.
>
> Matthew
>
> On 23 August 2011 09:18, Simone Tripodi wrote:
>
>> Hi all guys,
>> I'd suggest to
My vote (not that I have one) would be for 1.6, and to keep 2.0 as the
release when the breaking changes are introduced.
Matthew
On 23 August 2011 09:18, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> Hi all guys,
> I'd suggest to go through 1.6 too, even if we have a precedence in the
> past (before I joined as comm
Hi all guys,
I'd suggest to go through 1.6 too, even if we have a precedence in the
past (before I joined as committer) when the Digester version was
promoted from 1.8 to 2.0 just switching to JVM and added Generics...
So my "concern" is just make sure we adopt a common policy for every
component a
On 23 August 2011 03:32, Gary Gregory wrote:
> Hi All:
>
> After the last round of discussion WRT generics, a 2.0, version, and the new
> BM encoder, it seems the consensus is:
>
> - Release a version based on trunk. Trunk requires Java 5 and includes the
> new BM encoder.
>
> - Revert the trunk c
Hi All:
After the last round of discussion WRT generics, a 2.0, version, and the new
BM encoder, it seems the consensus is:
- Release a version based on trunk. Trunk requires Java 5 and includes the
new BM encoder.
- Revert the trunk changes that break binary compatibility, specifically,
based o
