>> >> Nothing of this (including minimum requirement of Java 5) requires >> >> automatically 2.x. As long as the API is *upward* binary compatible, you >> >> can >> >> improve the implementation using this features, adding new methods or >> new >> >> classes. Even generics can be added to some extend in a binary >> compatible >> >> way. This has been done for dbcp and there we deliver due to JDBC 3/4 >> even >> >> two versions. >> >> >> > >> > I feels like jumping to Java 5 is important enough to go to calling it >> 2.0. >> >> +1 agreed; it's a non-trivial change to introduce generics. >> >> > We could keep it 1.6 until something breaks... >> >> Dunno what you mean by that. >> > > I thought that we could call it 1.6 until a break in API would justify 2.0. > > But, nevermind, because I think we all agree on calling it 2.0 with Java 5. > > Gary > >
Or let's use Sun style versioning, and call the next version 6.0 !!! (while still calling it 1.6 in the tag...) ;-) ;-) ;-) ps. Just to avoid confusion with my silly joke, I am +1 to Java5 and calling it 2.0 and trying our utmost to preserve drop-in reverse compatibility. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
