If the RM is willing, there is always the RERO route and getting a 2.1.1 out next to address JRE/JVM compat. issues if those are fixable at all from VFS in a not too hacky manner.
Gary On May 5, 2016 5:41 PM, "Josh Elser" <els...@apache.org> wrote: > Jörg Schaible wrote: > >> Jörg Schaible wrote: >> >> > Hi Josh, >>> > >>> > Josh Elser wrote: >>> > >>> >>>> >> Oh, well then! No pressure:) >>>> >> >>>> >> I'll have to find some time to re-read all of the conversation >>>> between >>>> >> Jörg and Stian, but my initial reaction is the same as what you were >>>> >> implying: compatibility across more JVMs would be great, but >>>> shouldn't >>>> >> block this 2.1 release. >>>> >>> >> Just an additional remark: Compatibility across more JVMs*is* an issue, >> since there are platforms where you have no other choice (IBM AIX, Mac, >> most >> Linux distributions use OpenJDK by default). >> >> > Is 2.1's compatibility across JVMs worse than 2.0's was? What are the > guarantees put forth by those involved with commons-vfs for compatibility > WRT JVMs? > > I'm not nit-picking JVM support -- I'm nit-picking it's severity to block > v2.1 for being released. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > >
