Sorry.. I misread your message. I agree that bumping to 3.2.0 for Java 1.6
is good. Just like bumping to 3.1.0 for the aether refactor (and other
things) .
manfred
> Sorry, but I don't understand what you mean...
>
> 3.0.5 -> 3.1.0 was not a patch release, it was a minor release.
> See http://sem
Nooo. We already voted on what version can be 1.6 or not.
3.2 is 1.6
3.1.2 is 1.5
We don't need any vote as we already voted.
Jason is asking if we should bump the minor version (which will then kick
in the previous vote and force a bump of JRE to 1.6)
On Monday, 7 October 2013, Dennis Lundbe
Sorry, but I don't understand what you mean...
3.0.5 -> 3.1.0 was not a patch release, it was a minor release.
See http://semver.org/ for descriptions of the words I used.
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 9:01 PM, Manfred Moser wrote:
> True... but we already did the same when moving from Maven 3.0.5 to 3
+1 (non-binding)
Gary
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 11:03 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> Given the vote we had about releases after September does anyone mind if I
> update the source/target levels to 1.6 for the core?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jason
>
> --
>
True... but we already did the same when moving from Maven 3.0.5 to 3.1.0,
which is not a drop in replacement... so it would be consistent ;-)
manfred
> Well, I don't see the difference, but if I put it this way:
> I would be -1 to release Maven 3.1.2 requiring Java 1.6.
> One shouldn't bump plat
Well, I don't see the difference, but if I put it this way:
I would be -1 to release Maven 3.1.2 requiring Java 1.6.
One shouldn't bump platform requirements in a patch version - a patch
version should be a drop-in replacement.
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Stephen Connolly
wrote:
> You're voti
+1 too, 1.5 is dead for me.
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 8:12 PM, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
> +1 to 1.6 for 3.2
>
> On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 5:03 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> > Given the vote we had about releases after September does anyone mind if
> I update the source/target levels to 1.6 for the core?
>
You're voting for the wrong thing. It was already decided and announced
that when we cut 3.2 after Sep 30th it would be 1.6
The decision is: should the next release be 3.2 or 3.1.2? To my mind that
is a commit that Jason should just push and if somebody objects to the
commit they get to maintain t
On Monday, 7 October 2013, Manfred Moser wrote:
> > If I was choosing to write a technical book I would choose asciidoc.
>
> Agreed.. in fact asciidoc is the default markup tool at OReilly. I use it
> for all the books as Sonatype including Maven: The Complete Reference and
> Maven by Example..
>
+1 to 1.6 for 3.2
On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 5:03 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> Given the vote we had about releases after September does anyone mind if I
> update the source/target levels to 1.6 for the core?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jason
>
> --
> Jason
> If I was choosing to write a technical book I would choose asciidoc.
Agreed.. in fact asciidoc is the default markup tool at OReilly. I use it
for all the books as Sonatype including Maven: The Complete Reference and
Maven by Example..
> AsciiDoc is the technically superior product that may wel
11 matches
Mail list logo
