Seems we are keeping pace with RI.:) On 11/27/06, spark shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Andrew Zhang 写道: > On 11/27/06, Nathan Beyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> +1 >> >> I don't have a problem with these timelines. I think we probably need >> to start formalizing these plans a bit more. Perhaps set a target for >> a release candidate release of May. Also, I think this coincides >> nicely with establishing our branching/tagging policy (branch for JDK >> 5, trunk for JDK 6 and tags for each release, etc). > > > Branching/tagging sounds great! so that people can start contribuiting > right > away if they're interested in jdk6. :) +100. And I am interested in implementing J2SE 6 new feature. Best regards > > -Nathan >> >> On 11/26/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > I noticed that I've said the following several times, and it's really >> > not for me to say, but for us to say. >> > >> > Does anyone have a problem with the following "high-level" time line? >> > >> > >> > >> > Mid 2007 : Java SE 5 >> > >> > End 2007 : Java SE 6 (meaning we have to start thinking about Java >> SE 6 >> > classlib changes...) >> > >> > End 2008 : Java SE 7 (this really means "we'll do Java SE 7 when Sun >> > does Java SE 7...") >> > >> > >> > >> > geir >> > >> > > >
-- Leo Li China Software Development Lab, IBM
