+1
Arnaud HERITIER wrote:
+1
Arnaud
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 11:33 PM, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1D
On 17/08/2008, at 6:27 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
Is there any reason that the 2.1 branch cannot require java 1.5 to compile
and execute?
Ralph
l <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Betreff: Re: Java version for 2.1 branch
> An: "Maven Developers List"
> Datum: Sonntag, 17. August 2008, 18:23
> At this point I don't see why not. It's a major
> version bump, and
> we've seen from most feedback runnin
Brett Porter wrote:
I don't think this is surprising, however I think targeting JDK 1.4
but being able to run Java 5 is going to be common in this scenario
(consider most IDEs require JRE 5.0 now), and for those who can't even
do that, then they still have the option of using Maven 2.0.x, or
Please also consider Java 1.4 will start the end-of-life process in
october...
2008/8/18 Ralph Goers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> De Smet Ringo wrote:
>
>> Is there any reason that the 2.1 branch cannot require java 1.5 to compile
>>> and execute?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I am not a developer on Maven, so my
My target environment is Java 1.3, so I have a more critical requirement
than you as I simply can't run maven2 with the target env. This is not an
issue in any case as I have Java6 as a JDK and a JRE 1.3 for tests. I simply
set the source,target and bootclasspath options of the compiler plugin to
u
De Smet Ringo wrote:
Is there any reason that the 2.1 branch cannot require java
1.5 to compile and execute?
I am not a developer on Maven, so my vote would not count anyway. I am
an independent IT consultant and want to offer some background
information why this would be a "bad" decisio
I don't think this is surprising, however I think targeting JDK 1.4
but being able to run Java 5 is going to be common in this scenario
(consider most IDEs require JRE 5.0 now), and for those who can't even
do that, then they still have the option of using Maven 2.0.x, or
contributing retr
> Is there any reason that the 2.1 branch cannot require java
> 1.5 to compile and execute?
I am not a developer on Maven, so my vote would not count anyway. I am
an independent IT consultant and want to offer some background
information why this would be a "bad" decision.
During my work for th
+1
Arnaud
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 11:33 PM, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +1D
>
>
> On 17/08/2008, at 6:27 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> Is there any reason that the 2.1 branch cannot require java 1.5 to compile
>> and execute?
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> -
+1D
On 17/08/2008, at 6:27 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
Is there any reason that the 2.1 branch cannot require java 1.5 to
compile and execute?
Ralph
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [E
At this point I don't see why not. It's a major version bump, and
we've seen from most feedback running a 1.5 JVM doesn't appear to be a
problem for anyone.
+1
On 17-Aug-08, at 1:27 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
Is there any reason that the 2.1 branch cannot require java 1.5 to
compile and execu
11 matches
Mail list logo
