I believe we can call it 1.2 - as long as it's API compatible then tis good.
The Java5 version is more up for debate. If the API is no longer compatible, then we start to lean to 2.0. Especially as calling it 2.0 allows for more of an overhaul of API. There's also an argument that wants the package names changed for each major version. Hen On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Dan Fabulich <d...@fabulich.com> wrote: > Good catch. :-( > > Uh, if dbutils 1.1 was compatible with java 1.3, and we want to depend on > java 1.4 in the next version, do we have to call it "dbutils 2.0"? > > I assume not; I think we can still call it "dbutils 1.2" even though we > depend on java 1.4 now. Is that OK? > > Similarly, could/should we call the java5 version "1.3"? That would > certainly save time on branch management...? > > sebb wrote: > >> The pom.xml does not specify a java source or target version, so >> defaults to 1.3 (from the parent pom) >> >> As far as I can tell, the component requires at least 1.4 so the POM >> needs to be updated. >> >> [IMO the compiler settings should never be delegated to the parent POM] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
