I don't see getting a tremendous amount of benefit from switching 2.0.10 (or whatever you want to call it) to require 1.5 without in turn making however benign changes to the codebase...which would not be fixing issues directly and potentially expressing new ones which largely takes it out of the realm of a maintenance release imo.
I am perfectly fine with 2.1 requiring 1.5 but I think 2.0.x ought to stick with the minimal requirements it is sitting at already jesse On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 7:54 AM, nicolas de loof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That could be an option to keep in mind when/if we define a roadmap for 2.1 > release. > > If a 2.1 release can't be expected soon (i.e some mounth) we could rename it > 2.2 and prepare a 2.1 release to be feature equivalent to 2.0.x but require > java5. > > That beeing said, changing requirements for a "maintenance" release is not > IMHO a blocker. Many 2.0.x upgrades required some fixes to existing > projects, as detailled in release notes. I think the only reason for a minor > version is when some features gets removed... just my 2cents. > > Nicolas > 2008/5/4 Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > Perhaps 2.1 needs to be changed to 2.2 and then 2.1 can be used for what > > would be 2.0.10 + Java5 > > > > --jason > > > > > > > > On May 4, 2008, at 6:32 PM, Marat Radchenko wrote: > > > > +1 for 2.1, -1 for 2.0.10 > > > On 5/4/08, nicolas de loof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > As you can read at http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/ > > > > *" J2SE 1.4.2 is in its Java Technology End of Life (EOL) transition > > > > period*. > > > > The EOL transition period began Dec, 11 2006 and will complete October > > > > 30th, > > > > 2008" > > > > > > > > I don't think we have plan yet to release maven 2.1, so I think it > > > > would be > > > > a valid to require java 1.5 as minimal runtime. > > > > > > > > Main beneficts (IMHO) : > > > > > > > > - annotation can replace javadoc-style IoC an Maven plugin > > > > declarations > > > > (code allready available : > > > > http://docs.codehaus.org/display/MAVEN/Java+5+Annotations+for+Plugins) > > > > - jsr-250 annotations can replace some plexus interfaces ( LogEnabled > > > > -> > > > > @Resource('log') , Initializable --> @PostConstruct ...) and make > > > > component > > > > more "standard" and accessible to developpers without plexus > > > > knowledge. > > > > - generics can make the maven model more comprehensible. The current > > > > "Collection project.getArtifacts()" is not really clear and the fiew > > > > available javadoc don't help a lot. > > > > > > > > Other possible improvements : > > > > > > > > - plugin test tool could use jUnit 4 runners to create something > > > > comparable > > > > to spring-test-context : > > > > annotate your plugin test class with @Runwith( "MavenPluginTestRunner" > > > > ) > > > > @Pom( "myTestPom.xml" ) > > > > and the test will prepare the plugin set in the test pom and inject it > > > > in > > > > the test class. > > > > - benefict from java.util.concurrent to do some tasks in parallel ? > > > > Example > > > > : dependencies downloading > > > > - any other ? > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT ? > > > > > > > > > > > > Nicolas. > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > -- jesse mcconnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
