Thanks.
So it seems we all agree :-)
Oliver
Henri Yandell schrieb:
Seems fine to me.
On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Oliver Heger
wrote:
Thanks for the feedback so far. However, before taking concrete actions I
would like to put the question again in a broader scope.
The question is: Is
Oliver Heger a écrit :
> Thanks for the feedback so far. However, before taking concrete actions
> I would like to put the question again in a broader scope.
>
> The question is: Is it okay for a component to change its minimum
> required JDK from 1.3 to 1.4 in a minor release?
I think it is OK.
heger.de]
> Sent: Thursday, December 24, 2009 11:37
> To: dev@commons.apache.org
> Subject: [ALL] Switch to JDK 1.4 in a minor release - was:
> [configuration] Minimum required JDK version
>
> Thanks for the feedback so far. However, before taking concrete actions
> I would like t
Seems fine to me.
On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Oliver Heger
wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback so far. However, before taking concrete actions I
> would like to put the question again in a broader scope.
>
> The question is: Is it okay for a component to change its minimum required
> JDK from
Oliver Heger wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback so far. However, before taking concrete actions
> I would like to put the question again in a broader scope.
>
> The question is: Is it okay for a component to change its minimum
> required JDK from 1.3 to 1.4 in a minor release?
We are about to do th
Thanks for the feedback so far. However, before taking concrete actions
I would like to put the question again in a broader scope.
The question is: Is it okay for a component to change its minimum
required JDK from 1.3 to 1.4 in a minor release?
I just want to make sure that there are no veto
Oliver Heger wrote:
> Currently the 1.x version of [configuration] requires JDK 1.3. I wonder
> whether it makes sense to switch to JDK 1.4 instead.
>
> I used to think that a switch of the minimum JDK version was only
> possible for a major release. However, JDK 1.3 reached its EOL so long
> ago
Not by me.
Ralph
On Dec 21, 2009, at 12:32 PM, Oliver Heger wrote:
> Currently the 1.x version of [configuration] requires JDK 1.3. I wonder
> whether it makes sense to switch to JDK 1.4 instead.
>
> I used to think that a switch of the minimum JDK version was only possible
> for a major rel
Currently the 1.x version of [configuration] requires JDK 1.3. I wonder
whether it makes sense to switch to JDK 1.4 instead.
I used to think that a switch of the minimum JDK version was only
possible for a major release. However, JDK 1.3 reached its EOL so long
ago that this should not be an i
