Henri Yandell wrote: > On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 5:59 AM, Stefan Bodewig <bode...@apache.org> > wrote: >> On 2009-03-16, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I've not looked into this yet, but I think we can have two Lang builds >>> in Gump, one for the new stuff, and another for other projects. >> >> Easily, yes. >> >> Is there a branch that should be used by project that are likely to be >> broken by the changes in lang? > > The 2.4 tag. > > Having it fail was useful for me with the String Taglib; the code > needed to move off of deprecated methods. > > Personally I think failing is good and we'll learn lots from it. I'd > like to keep trunk until the consumer community indicate it's a pain > point. For example making a lang-backcompat jar for enum and > exceptions might be a better choice and getting projects to add a > dependency on that in gump.
+1, this will directly show how "compatible" we are, since this be a major topic for all consumers of lang. - Jörg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
