That would fall under something we find compelling ;-). You do obviously bring up the valid point that our minimum also has to take our dependencies into account. If we depend on that version of commons io then we would have no choice but to bump our minimum. On Aug 1, 2012 4:48 PM, "Richard Frovarp" <richard.frov...@ndsu.edu> wrote:
> On 08/01/2012 01:42 PM, Scott Battaglia wrote: > >> If we're looking to use our position as away to push people to upgrade >> their EOL-ed stuff, than I am for making Java 6 the minimum (i.e. some >> organizations won't upgrade until something forces them too). >> >> I typically look at it from the perspective of what is in 1.6 (or 1.7) >> that is helpful enough to us at the development team to enforce some >> minimum on the deployers. I didn't see anything compelling enough in a 1.6 >> API for us that made it worth it to force a higher minimum. >> >> Cheers, >> Scott >> >> > While you might not see anything compelling, one of the libraries you > depend on might. For instance Apache Commons IO recently released version > 2.4, which is dependent on Java 6. > > -- > You are currently subscribed to cas-dev@lists.jasig.org as: > scott.battag...@gmail.com > To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives, see > http://www.ja-sig.org/wiki/**display/JSG/cas-dev<http://www.ja-sig.org/wiki/display/JSG/cas-dev> > -- You are currently subscribed to cas-dev@lists.jasig.org as: arch...@mail-archive.com To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives, see http://www.ja-sig.org/wiki/display/JSG/cas-dev
