On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 21:07:05 +0300, Artem Barger wrote:
How do you differ between core and tools? What should be included in
each? Do you mean to further split up current commons-rng?
Not split the _current_ codebase (which is "core").
If non-core tools (e.g. syntactic sugar like "Stream"s or
How do you differ between core and tools? What should be included in each? Do
you mean to further split up current commons-rng?
Sounds possible once decided how you'd like to divide it.
Отправлено с iPhone
> 11 авг. 2016 г., в 20:44, Gilles написал(а):
>
> On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 09:02:34 +0300,
On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 09:02:34 +0300, Artem Barger wrote:
11 авг. 2016 г., в 2:08, Rob Tompkins
написал(а):
I would guess that we would want to be compatible with the oldest
version of Java possible dictated out of necessity. By that I mean if
there's something of considerable substance that a
> 11 авг. 2016 г., в 2:08, Rob Tompkins написал(а):
>
> I would guess that we would want to be compatible with the oldest version of
> Java possible dictated out of necessity. By that I mean if there's something
> of considerable substance that a newer version affords us, then we should
> up
> On Aug 10, 2016, at 6:43 PM, Artem Barger wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 11:58 PM, Gilles
> wrote:
>
>> But if all are happy to require Java 7, I wouldn't certainly
>> oppose it!
>
> And what about going forward and switching to Java 8? Or this sort of
> decision
> should be received
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 11:58 PM, Gilles
wrote:
> But if all are happy to require Java 7, I wouldn't certainly
> oppose it!
>
And what about going forward and switching to Java 8? Or this sort of
decision
should be received broadly across all commons projects?
Best regards,
On Wed, 10 Aug 2016 15:44:45 -0500, Matt Sicker wrote:
Yeah, I'm kind of wondering why a new project is being made with Java
6 at
this point.
There is a rationale; see messages for the following commits:
bb0886f84ba23032306c6376987f92ce653f181d
ed083eaf22c4c8403660c48bee7945d40edee6d9
But i
Le 10/08/2016 à 22:42, James Ring a écrit :
> Why not Java 7 at least? Java 6 was EOL 5 years ago now.
RNG doesn't need more than Java 6 for now, so that's fine. And Java 6 is
still supported by Oracle (end of extended support in December 2018).
Emmanuel Bourg
--
Yeah, I'm kind of wondering why a new project is being made with Java 6 at
this point.
On 10 August 2016 at 15:42, James Ring wrote:
> Why not Java 7 at least? Java 6 was EOL 5 years ago now.
>
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> > Le 10/08/2016 à 22:37, Gary Gregory a éc
Why not Java 7 at least? Java 6 was EOL 5 years ago now.
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Le 10/08/2016 à 22:37, Gary Gregory a écrit :
>> Why not use "catch (InvocationTargetException | InstantiationException |
>> IllegalAccessException e) {..."
>>
>> ?
>
> Because the l
Le 10/08/2016 à 22:37, Gary Gregory a écrit :
> Why not use "catch (InvocationTargetException | InstantiationException |
> IllegalAccessException e) {..."
>
> ?
Because the language level is Java 6
Emmanuel Bourg
-
To unsubsc
Why not use "catch (InvocationTargetException | InstantiationException |
IllegalAccessException e) {..."
?
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 1:25 PM, wrote:
> Repository: commons-rng
> Updated Branches:
> refs/heads/master 16144a47a -> 42ca85b3d
>
>
> CheckStyle.
>
>
> Project: http://git-wip-us.apach
12 matches
Mail list logo
