> From: Phil Steitz [mailto:phil.ste...@gmail.com] > > Stephen Colebourne wrote: > > Rahul Akolkar wrote: > >> > >> Note that the above breaks binary and source compatibility. > Therefore, > >> at the least, such changes deserve notable mentions in the release > >> notes and often additional thought about the version number of the > >> next release. > > > > We shouldn't create any more jar hell situations. > I agree with Stephen on this. This is a needless break. I would > prefer > to limit changes to what is required to support compilation under JDK > 1.6. Otherwise, we need to target a 2.0 (and consider changing > package > name) and as there does not appear to be collective energy to push out > a > 1.2.3 bugfix release, I would really like to see 1.3 usable by current > users as there are some nasty bugs that have been fixed in trunk.
+1 Mark --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
