Brett Porter wrote:
On 24/04/2009, at 12:01 PM, Brian Fox wrote:
On 4/23/2009 9:57 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
On 24/04/2009, at 9:55 AM, Brian Fox wrote:
I agree, if we call it 2.2 because it moves to jdk 1.5 and we fix
the other stuff, great. But lets keep the scope very small and
limited
On 24/04/2009, at 12:01 PM, Brian Fox wrote:
On 4/23/2009 9:57 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
On 24/04/2009, at 9:55 AM, Brian Fox wrote:
I agree, if we call it 2.2 because it moves to jdk 1.5 and we fix
the other stuff, great. But lets keep the scope very small and
limited so we can get the
On 4/23/2009 9:57 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
On 24/04/2009, at 9:55 AM, Brian Fox wrote:
I agree, if we call it 2.2 because it moves to jdk 1.5 and we fix the
other stuff, great. But lets keep the scope very small and limited so
we can get the regressions in 2.1.0 out quickly.
I don't think
On 24/04/2009, at 9:55 AM, Brian Fox wrote:
I agree, if we call it 2.2 because it moves to jdk 1.5 and we fix
the other stuff, great. But lets keep the scope very small and
limited so we can get the regressions in 2.1.0 out quickly.
I don't think there's any harm in that. Version numbers a
I agree, if we call it 2.2 because it moves to jdk 1.5 and we fix the
other stuff, great. But lets keep the scope very small and limited so we
can get the regressions in 2.1.0 out quickly. I'm afraid that relabeling
it 2.2 would mean a pile on the bandwagon effect occurs and we'd be
stuck churn
John Casey wrote:
1. leave MNG-4140 unfixed
I admire your efforts on the core and my intention was surely not to
hinder the progress you or anybody else makes, only to properly label it.
2. drag in something like jdom +jaxen +saxpath to do xpath
search/replacement for MNG-4140
3. attempt t
I added that today, after Benjamin mentioned it.
Arnaud HERITIER wrote:
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-4143Actually it's scheduled for 2.1.1
Arnaud
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 10:49 PM, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
Benjamin Bentmann wrote:
John Casey wrote:
Since we've already decided that 2.1
Dennis Lundberg wrote:
Benjamin Bentmann wrote:
John Casey wrote:
I have no objection to move to 1.5, but we can't do it for a point release.
The alternatives to moving to 1.5 for 2.1.1 are:
1. leave MNG-4140 unfixed
2. drag in something like jdom +jaxen +saxpath to do xpath
search/repl
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-4143Actually it's scheduled for 2.1.1
Arnaud
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 10:49 PM, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
> Benjamin Bentmann wrote:
> > John Casey wrote:
> >
> >> Since we've already decided that 2.1.0 would be moving to Java 1.5 I
> >> can't see the use in hangi
Benjamin Bentmann wrote:
> John Casey wrote:
>
>> Since we've already decided that 2.1.0 would be moving to Java 1.5 I
>> can't see the use in hanging onto the 1.4 requirement
>
> Let me clarify that I'm fine with moving to Java 1.5 (hurray). My
> concern was that this change is made between 2.1.
John Casey wrote:
Since we've already decided that 2.1.0 would be moving to Java 1.5 I
can't see the use in hanging onto the 1.4 requirement
Let me clarify that I'm fine with moving to Java 1.5 (hurray). My
concern was that this change is made between 2.1.0 and 2.1.1, i.e. it's
merely the ve
On 23/04/2009, at 1:27 AM, John Casey wrote:
So, if it's a big concern let's branch for the generic conversion
stuff I did (and to continue that work), but let's not force 1.4 on
this release. It's unnecessary IMO. For the few users still actually
using 1.4 on a daily basis, it shouldn't b
I'm fine with rolling back the generic conversion stuff that I committed
for maven-artifact-* and maven-project-* yesterday (even though I was
very careful to check out the ways collections were populated, etc. to
avoid casting problems), but I did have to write new code for MNG-4140.
Since we'
+1 for the branch if someone wants to work on it.
Arnaud
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 1:09 AM, Brett Porter wrote:
> While I'd be ok with updating the base requirement, starting to make a lot
> of changes to generify things should probably be kept to 2.2.x (I've seen
> bugs introduced in other projec
I know and I was agree but we didn't do it. We didn't warn our users when we
published 2.1.0 (or I didn't see it).
Arnaud
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 1:11 AM, Brian Fox wrote:
> We previously already voted that 2.1.x would require 1.5.
>
>
> Arnaud HERITIER wrote:
>
>>Bumping the Java requiremen
We previously already voted that 2.1.x would require 1.5.
Arnaud HERITIER wrote:
Bumping the Java requirement doesn't feel like a maintenance release IMHO.
Therefore, shouldn't we bump the Maven version to 2.2 as well and rename the
branch or create a new one?
+1 It's a too big change for
While I'd be ok with updating the base requirement, starting to make a
lot of changes to generify things should probably be kept to 2.2.x
(I've seen bugs introduced in other projects in the process due to
casting, interface breakage, etc). I agree with John's tweeted intent
to keep 2.1.1 to
>
>
>>
> Bumping the Java requirement doesn't feel like a maintenance release IMHO.
> Therefore, shouldn't we bump the Maven version to 2.2 as well and rename the
> branch or create a new one?
>
> +1 It's a too big change for a bug fix release
Arnaud
Hi John,
Author: jdcasey
Date: Tue Apr 21 16:24:42 2009
New Revision: 767207
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=767207&view=rev
Log:
update to require java 1.5.
Modified:
maven/components/branches/maven-2.1.x/pom.xml
Modified: maven/components/branches/maven-2.1.x/pom.xml
URL:
http://
19 matches
Mail list logo
