On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 6:44 PM, ralph.goers @dslextreme.com <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > +1 to the proposal. > > As for moving out of commons I would expect that it would require a vote of > the Commons PMC with approval from the board. I don't know why it would > need to go through the incubator since it would have already performed > releases here, its IP would already be cleared and presumably we would only > make the proposal if it already had a community of its own.
I said it only because of the "community building aspect". A new tld would be required and a working PMC must be setup. If this is would be clear from the beginning I agree. Actually if this step would be required, I would try to avoid the incubator as much as I can > > Ralph > > On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 6:17 AM, henrib <hen...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Sorry to bug everyone again, I'm hopelessly trying to make Commons move a >> little forward... >> >> Since a 2-person opposition never breaks the tie, a vote is in order to >> decide whether JEXL3 (aka the next major version after 2.1, see JEXL-123) >> can actually break loose of Java 1.5 compatibility. (sic) >> >> JEXL3 is intended to be a next major release of JEXL that cleans up the >> API, >> making sure the internal/public contract is crystal clear. Since it is a >> major revamp of the API, JEXL3 is intended to be used by new/active >> projects >> that will be deployed on Java6 / Java7. To avoid some development cost, >> I've >> "blatantly" crossed another rule without much thinking by requiring Java6 >> for JEXL3 (instead of Java5 which is EOL). >> >> Since JEXL2.1 - aka the next imminent version of jexl2 - already targets >> Java 1.5, I did not think it would start yet another fight with the release >> police. Was I wrong... "Why can't you supporting a EOL-ed platform for a >> new >> version of the project?". (Because it's not a freebie for me but no >> matter). >> >> So, here we are again for some bickering and vote: >> [+1] Yes, you may release the next major release of JEXL3 with a Java6 >> requirement >> [-1] No, this is an important case/issue/matter/rule that we continue >> supporting Java 1.5 >> [0] Don't care >> >> Many thanks to those who will vote for their time and patience; >> Henrib >> >> PS: Is there a process to formally move a project from Commons to elsewhere >> within Apache? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://apache-commons.680414.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Can-the-next-version-major-version-of-a-project-require-Java6-i-e-drop-Java-1-5-tp4160635p4160635.html >> Sent from the Commons - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> >> -- http://www.grobmeier.de https://www.timeandbill.de --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
