> Why not 1.3 ?
>
> Or at least wait until you see how much is changed before deciding
> whether it deserves a point release or a minor release bump.
nice idea, let's keep 1.2.3 until something drives us on increasing
the minor version
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi
On 5 March 2013 20:56, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> Thanks both Gary and Sebb,
>
>> It seems very unlikely that anyone will still be running Java 1.3 or
>> Java 1.4, so the change to 1.5 is not likely to concern users, even
>> though it is a bit of a jump.
>> Is the addition of generics sufficiently si
Am 05.03.2013 um 21:56 schrieb Simone Tripodi :
> Thanks both Gary and Sebb,
>
>> It seems very unlikely that anyone will still be running Java 1.3 or
>> Java 1.4, so the change to 1.5 is not likely to concern users, even
>> though it is a bit of a jump.
>> Is the addition of generics sufficien
Thanks both Gary and Sebb,
> It seems very unlikely that anyone will still be running Java 1.3 or
> Java 1.4, so the change to 1.5 is not likely to concern users, even
> though it is a bit of a jump.
> Is the addition of generics sufficiently significant?
what you said makes perfectly sense, 2.0.
On 5 March 2013 19:57, Simone Tripodi wrote:
>>> Just for the record: I don't intend to do a major rewrite ATM, just
>>> update and bugfix.
>>
>> So why the change to 2.0?
>
> I intend to add at least generics, where possible - in the past, the
> introduction of generics in digester justified the
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> >>> Just for the record: I don't intend to do a major rewrite ATM, just
> >>> update and bugfix.
> >>
> >> So why the change to 2.0?
> >
> > I intend to add at least generics, where possible - in the past, the
> > introduction of generics in
>>> Just for the record: I don't intend to do a major rewrite ATM, just
>>> update and bugfix.
>>
>> So why the change to 2.0?
>
> I intend to add at least generics, where possible - in the past, the
> introduction of generics in digester justified the update from
> digester-1.8 to digester-2.0.
>
>> Just for the record: I don't intend to do a major rewrite ATM, just
>> update and bugfix.
>
> So why the change to 2.0?
I intend to add at least generics, where possible - in the past, the
introduction of generics in digester justified the update from
digester-1.8 to digester-2.0.
Is the gener
On 5 March 2013 15:34, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> Just for the record: I don't intend to do a major rewrite ATM, just
> update and bugfix.
So why the change to 2.0?
> best,
> -Simo
>
> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
> http://twitter.com/simonetripod
Hallo Jörg!
>> Sounds great.
>>
>> But please, keep in mind to take care of the package export version:
>> Currently the API is exported at 1.2.1 being the same as the
>> bundle/library version. If you update the library/bundle to 2.0, make sure
>> the API export is *not* updated to 2.0, otherwise
On 5 March 2013 18:57, KONTRA, Gergely wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 7:20 PM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>
>> Hi Felix,
>>
>> Felix Meschberger wrote:
>>
>> > Hi
>> >
>> > Sounds great.
>> >
>> > But please, keep in mind to take care of the package export version:
>> > Currently the API is exported a
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 7:20 PM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> Hi Felix,
>
> Felix Meschberger wrote:
>
> > Hi
> >
> > Sounds great.
> >
> > But please, keep in mind to take care of the package export version:
> > Currently the API is exported at 1.2.1 being the same as the
> > bundle/library version. If
Hi Felix,
Felix Meschberger wrote:
> Hi
>
> Sounds great.
>
> But please, keep in mind to take care of the package export version:
> Currently the API is exported at 1.2.1 being the same as the
> bundle/library version. If you update the library/bundle to 2.0, make sure
> the API export is *not
On 5 March 2013 16:43, Gary Gregory wrote:
> +1. Why not Java 6 since 5 is mostly dead.
1.5 is not totally dead, so why exclude those users who still have Java 1.5?
If there is some feature of 1.6 that would make a big difference to
the performance/functionality then it night be OK, but there is
Hi
Sounds great.
But please, keep in mind to take care of the package export version: Currently
the API is exported at 1.2.1 being the same as the bundle/library version. If
you update the library/bundle to 2.0, make sure the API export is *not* updated
to 2.0, otherwise consumers in OSGi envi
+1. Why not Java 6 since 5 is mostly dead.
Gary
On Mar 5, 2013, at 10:05, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> Hi all guys,
>
> since I need [fileupload] @work, I intend to do a major bump that
> recently involved other commons component.
>
> Any objection?
> TIA,
> -Simo
>
> http://people.apache.org/~simon
+1... jdk1.3...
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> Just for the record: I don't intend to do a major rewrite ATM, just
> update and bugfix.
>
> best,
> -Simo
>
> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
> http://twitter.com/simonetripo
Just for the record: I don't intend to do a major rewrite ATM, just
update and bugfix.
best,
-Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
http://www.99soft.org/
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> Hi a
Hi all guys,
since I need [fileupload] @work, I intend to do a major bump that
recently involved other commons component.
Any objection?
TIA,
-Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
http://www.99soft.org/
19 matches
Mail list logo
