On 15/09/2016 12:05, Julian Reschke wrote:
>
> Do we need more time/discussion?
I would say we could start an official 72hr voting on it.
In case of failures we can keep discussing.
Cheers
Davide
On 2016-09-14 15:40, Davide Giannella wrote:
On 14/09/2016 12:27, Julian Reschke wrote:
should we consider allowing JDK7 features in 1.4 as well?
I'm perfectly fine with it.
It looks like no one noticed the error and it's relatively low risk for
1.4. JD7 has been around for a while now.
I wou
On 14/09/2016 12:27, Julian Reschke wrote:
> should we consider allowing JDK7 features in 1.4 as well?
I'm perfectly fine with it.
It looks like no one noticed the error and it's relatively low risk for
1.4. JD7 has been around for a while now.
I would simply add a note on the download page unde
Hi,
On 14/09/16 13:27, Julian Reschke wrote:
So we now enforce JDK7 compliance on trunk, and JDK6 compliance on the
release branches (1.0, 1.2, 1.4).
Given the fact that we already shipped two releases of 1.4 which did
require JDK7 features (and apparently nobody noticed), should we
consider al
Hi Davide,
> On 13 Sep 2016, at 14:57, Davide Giannella wrote:
>
> Sorry if it's redundant but I didn't have the time yet to check the commits.
>
> Here's, from another project I worked on, how to enforce a specific java
> version at compile time.
>
> The build will fail if it's not compiled w
On 12/09/2016 13:09, Marcel Reutegger wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 12/09/16 13:14, Chetan Mehrotra wrote:
>> I think Marcel created OAK-4791 for the same. So that should take care
>> of enforcing this constraing
>
> Indeed. For trunk I just enabled the check against the 1.7 signature.
>
> I will backport th
On 2016-09-12 14:09, Marcel Reutegger wrote:
Hi,
On 12/09/16 13:14, Chetan Mehrotra wrote:
I think Marcel created OAK-4791 for the same. So that should take care
of enforcing this constraing
Indeed. For trunk I just enabled the check against the 1.7 signature.
I will backport the plugin conf
Hi,
On 12/09/16 13:14, Chetan Mehrotra wrote:
I think Marcel created OAK-4791 for the same. So that should take care
of enforcing this constraing
Indeed. For trunk I just enabled the check against the 1.7 signature.
I will backport the plugin configuration to the branches and change
the versi
;>To: oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org
>>Subject: Re: Minimum JDK version
>>
>>Hi,
>>
>>the interesting thing here is that we actually compile the code with -
>>source and -target=1.6 in these branches [1][2]. However, the javac still
>>uses the rt.jar comi
ekawek [mailto:reka...@adobe.com]
>Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 1:06 PM
>To: oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org
>Subject: Re: Minimum JDK version
>
>Hi,
>
>the interesting thing here is that we actually compile the code with -
>source and -target=1.6 in these branches [1][2]. Howe
Hi,
the interesting thing here is that we actually compile the code with -source
and -target=1.6 in these branches [1][2]. However, the javac still uses the
rt.jar coming from the current JDK and it does contain the java.nio package. It
seems that the only way to check the API usage correctness
On 2016-09-12 11:42, Davide Giannella wrote:
Hello team,
following the recent mishap about JDK version and releases highlighted
two main issues:
cannot find jenkins for anything that is not 1.6
we should enforce the build to build with the minimum required JDK.
Now for the second point, this
12 matches
Mail list logo
