Hi Alfred,
Alfred Nathaniel escribió:
On Mon, 2006-12-18 at 16:24 +0100, Reinhard Poetz wrote:
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Perhaps we should rethink this "drop jdk1.3 support" stuff, remove the
comment from the status file and get 2.1.10 out.
I agree.
I agree, too.
The last thing I want is to hold up the 2.1.10. If I had known what I
stirred up here, I would not have started it.
I apologize for the short time for discusion and vote but the idea was
to get it into 2.1.10. Otherwise it will stay forever.
Don't worry. Everything is ok. I think Vadim solution is great is the
best scape pod we can get. :)
Quoting:
"get 2.1.10 out, close 2.1.x branch, and work on getting 2.2 out - i'm
completely +1 on this line of thinking. Why do we need to keep on
dragging 2.1.x branch forward? Just say that 2.1.10 is last on jdk 1.3
(and last of 2.1.x), and 2.2 forward requires jdk 1.4. "
Also given the current status, I am wondering if we should reconsider
java 1.4 as the minimum for cocoon 2.2. We should keep in mind java 1.6
is out, hence if we agree to have java 1.4 as minimum we will have to
support it for the next 2 years or so (based on the current release
time). Thinking in 2 years for now. I wonder who will still be using
java 1.4 and hence we will met the same issue as today, isn't?
Best Regards,
Antonio Gallardo.
Personally I think trunk is still too immature and unapproachable that
there must a way open for 2.1.11+ release.
I have nothing against staying JDK1.3 compatible, only I doubt that is
is still useful. I think it is simply a non-issue, and we are making
life unnecessarily hard for ourselves. Hands up, who has still a
working 1.3 JVM on his computer to support it?
If we weren't nailed down with trunk == 2.2, it would be sensible to
save face by calling the 2.1.1 already 2.2. But that is too late now...
I am not so firm in ASF rules. Does the one who called the vote have
the right to withdraw the motion? Or does somebody else want to call a
vote to undo this vote?
Cheers, Alfred.
