On 5/30/13 4:06 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Le 30/05/2013 11:40, Phil Steitz a écrit :
>
>> Sorry for stupidity above. I was not thinking through the
>> consequences of the gump-esque build process. I guess if we really
>> want to support everything building from source with no binary
>> incompat
Le 30/05/2013 11:40, Phil Steitz a écrit :
> Sorry for stupidity above. I was not thinking through the
> consequences of the gump-esque build process. I guess if we really
> want to support everything building from source with no binary
> incompatible change, we are going to have to support the
On 5/30/13 1:47 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Le 30/05/2013 06:12, Phil Steitz a écrit :
>
>> Only because we have not yet released 2.0. If we focus on doing
>> that, their problem is solved. That was basically my point above.
> Let's suppose we release a binary incompatible 2.0 version that compi
Le 30/05/2013 06:12, Phil Steitz a écrit :
> Only because we have not yet released 2.0. If we focus on doing
> that, their problem is solved. That was basically my point above.
Let's suppose we release a binary incompatible 2.0 version that compiles
with Java 7, the Debian/Fedora maintainers w
On 5/28/13 1:55 PM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Le 28/05/2013 21:47, Gary Gregory a écrit :
>
>> Something seems out of bounds here. Strictly speaking I know we deliver
>> sources and we provide a jar as a convenience.
>>
>> The source we deliver comes with a clear definition through the POM on how
>>
Le 28/05/2013 21:47, Gary Gregory a écrit :
> Something seems out of bounds here. Strictly speaking I know we deliver
> sources and we provide a jar as a convenience.
>
> The source we deliver comes with a clear definition through the POM on how
> to build it. We say, the source is Java version X
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 3:24 PM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Le 28/05/2013 19:50, Phil Steitz a écrit :
>
> > Looks complicated and painful. I would rather put energy into
> > getting dbcp 2.0 out the door and aim for the following:
> >
> > DBCP 1.3.x JDK 1.4-1.5
> > DBCP 1.4.x JDK 1.6
> > DBCP 2.x
Le 28/05/2013 19:50, Phil Steitz a écrit :
> Looks complicated and painful. I would rather put energy into
> getting dbcp 2.0 out the door and aim for the following:
>
> DBCP 1.3.x JDK 1.4-1.5
> DBCP 1.4.x JDK 1.6
> DBCP 2.xJDK 1.7
Unfortunately that doesn't solve the issue for the Linux di
On 5/28/13 3:58 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Le 11/01/2013 08:36, Mark Thomas a écrit :
>
>> We could also add the JDBC 4.1 methods to DBCP1 but I'm not sure I like the
>> idea of three builds for that version.
> I think we should do that. Debian and Fedora maintain a patch to be able
> to build DB
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 6:58 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Le 11/01/2013 08:36, Mark Thomas a écrit :
>
> > We could also add the JDBC 4.1 methods to DBCP1 but I'm not sure I like
> the idea of three builds for that version.
>
> I think we should do that. Debian and Fedora maintain a patch to be ab
Le 11/01/2013 08:36, Mark Thomas a écrit :
> We could also add the JDBC 4.1 methods to DBCP1 but I'm not sure I like the
> idea of three builds for that version.
I think we should do that. Debian and Fedora maintain a patch to be able
to build DBCP from source (see DBCP-385), but we should assum
Phil Steitz wrote:
>On 1/10/13 8:57 AM, ma...@apache.org wrote:
>> Author: markt
>> Date: Thu Jan 10 16:57:07 2013
>> New Revision: 1431496
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1431496&view=rev
>> Log:
>> Update DBCP2 to require JDBC 4.1 (Java 7) since Java 6 is close to
>end of life and
12 matches
Mail list logo
