On 11/1/06, Oleg Kalnichevski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 2006-11-01 at 15:26 -0500, Rahul Akolkar wrote:
> On 11/1/06, Oleg Kalnichevski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> I wasn't implying we require JCL 1.1 now, but that when we do, we
> diligently upgrade with each new release (for those components that
> release). Otherwise we have Foo that needs 1.0.2 and Bar that needs
> 1.1 and it cannot be obvious to everyone what its implication on
> needing Foo and Bar together is.
>
Rahul,
I am fine with (and probably in favor of) all Commons simultaneously
upgrading to a specific version of JCL (or any other common dependency).
In practical terms, though, that would pretty much mean that I
personally stop testing the component(s) I am maintaining against older
versions of JCL, thus rendering them de-facto EOL. Wouldn't it be better
to just come out and declare JCL x.y.z end-of-life / no longer
supported?
<snip/>
EOL might be a nice way to play out that "prodding other projects to
move" thing that was discussed lately. If maintainers of Foo don't
mind caring about all major version branches, they're free to not
declare any as EOL'ed (to save us from the special case arguments).
I personally wouldn't be too keen on maintaining more than one branch
for some things I'm more closely involved in.
-Rahul
Oleg
>
> > Take it for what it is worth.
> >
> <snip/>
>
> You're modest ;-)
>
> -Rahul
>
>
> > Oleg
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
