Hi Josh, Josh Elser 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? It passed last time. We have now new JDKs though and don't support the Java 5 ones anymore and have some new tests. > What are the > guarantees put forth by those involved with commons-vfs for > compatibility WRT JVMs? If issues are reported we already identified as problem with the JDK, we can simply relax and give an appropriate pointer. This is e.g. the case for commons-io where the IBM JDKs fail with UTF-16LE. > I'm not nit-picking JVM support -- I'm nit-picking it's severity to > block v2.1 for being released. As said, I do not block it, but for *my* vote, I want to know, why some JDKs fail. Cheers, Jörg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
