Problem with that is that we'll end up supporting lots of versions. I'd like to keep a 2.x branch going for bugfixing for older JDKs, and move on 3.0 much more up to date.
So we'd have 1.2->1.4 users being supported with the 2.x branch; or 2.2.x branch as it's currently called; and 1.5+ users with the 3.x branch. The fact you're on 1.4.2 (and I know how it feels from my previous job) just gives you an itch to keep the 2.x branch backports going :) Hen On 10/20/06, Gary Gregory <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello [lang]: For the software I work on, Java 1.4.2 is the base requirement, so talking about 1.5 is not an option (yet). We revisit the issue from time to time, but the bottom line is that our customers have not moved to Java 1.5, so we cannot. We could do this in a first stage and say that [lang] 3.0 requires Java 1.4, and [lang] 4.0 requires 1.5. Or maybe sync the [lang] major version to the Java minor (or major depending on how you like your Java versions): lang 4.0 + Java 1.4l; lang 5.0 paired with Java 1.5, etc. I do like moving up the requirement to Java 1.4 and take advantage anything there before moving on. Gary > -----Original Message----- > From: Henri Yandell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 12:06 PM > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > Subject: [lang] 3.0 as next release? JDK 1.5 minimum? > > Starting to think about the next Lang release. 2.3 had a few Enum > issues to look at. > > LANG-76 - Complex issue in initializing under JDK 1.5. > LANG-262 - ClassLoader issue. Possible fix committed, but no testing done yet. > LANG-258 - Improve Enum javadoc. I've been doing some work on this. > > There were a couple of other ones, but I've moved them over to 3.0. > One of them implied functionality change that would better fit a maj > release and the other was concerning test improvements. > > There are 5 issues resolved in 2.3 currently. These would be moved to 3.0. > > Now for the argument-inducing part: > > I think Lang 3.0 should have JDK 1.5 as a minimum. This allows us to > focus on adding improvements to features in JDK 1.3->1.5, and we would > also cleanup by deleting deprecated classes/packages. LANG-76 and > LANG-258 both are 1.5 focused, so they'd fit quite happily there. > LANG-262 hasn't had any feedback, so I'm in no rush to push it > through. > > So the biggest issue is whether the 5 resolved issues need to be > released earlier. Two are enhancements to StringUtils, so not > important. The other three are bugs - one in DurationFormatUtils and > the others in cyclic object handling in the builder package. They > could be backported to a 2.2.1 release(?). > > Any thoughts? > > Hen > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
