On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 10:45 AM, henrib <hen...@apache.org> wrote: > > Matt Benson-2 wrote >> >> Maybe the right approach is to start with Java 6, then whoever likes to >> can >> investigate how much work it would take to restore Java 5 >> compatibility. >> > Seems like a reasonable proposal to me; it means Java 1.5 is a "nice to > have" feature - not a "must have" - feature as it currently stands. > If someone needs a Java 1.5 backport, he can contribute to the project by > doing so. Do-ocracy at work. > Fair enough?
+1 Exactly that is what I wanted to express. Looks like I can't express very well. Cheers Christian > Cheers > Henrib > > PS: may be at the process/Commons level, we could introduce another category > for of our projects. > Instead of the current 3 "Proper, Sandbox, Dormant", something like "Stable > (1.5-able), Proper, Sandox, Dormant" or "Modern, Proper (1.5 able), Sandbox, > Dormant". So new versions can go "modern" till the need arise & a > contribution is made for a "stable" version. Just a thought... > > > > -- > 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-tp4160635p4164066.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
