On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 10:00 AM, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>wrote:
> Gary, > > In this case, we're dealing with a veto to a code modification, which > is allowed. Here's the information with respect to code modification > vetoes (http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#Veto): > > "A code-modification proposal may be stopped dead in its tracks by a > -1 vote by a qualified voter. This constitutes a veto, and it cannot > be overruled nor overridden by anyone. Vetos stand until and unless > withdrawn by their casters. > > To prevent vetos from being used capriciously, they must be > accompanied by a technical justification showing why the change is bad > (opens a security exposure, negatively affects performance, etc. ). A > veto without a justification is invalid and has no weight." > > Since there is a technical justification ("it's not necessary") > provided with this veto, it stands until "sebb" withdraws it. > > That isn't to say that I agree with sebb's assessment, necessarily. I > think we should drop Java 5 like a bad habit. We already have a bad > reputation for living in the past. We need to be more > forward-leaning. We can always support older versions on older JDKs > if necessary (could be a YAGNI situation). If we do jump JDK > versions, I'd say we should jump major version numbers (which others > have disagreed with in the past). To me, version numbers are cheap > (look at Firefox!). > James, Thank you for your kind reply and refreshing my memory to our processes. At the risk of being pedantic, let me get the details right and on 'paper' here so that we can all be on the same page. Sebb's -1 was not a veto to a code change but to my opinion that we should update our platform requirement to Java 6 from 5, so there is here nothing to 'veto'. I guess you could call it a pre-commit-veto to avoid a sequence of commitJava6-veto-commitJava5. (Now let's say I change the POM to require Java 6 so changes can now be Java 6 changes. Is changing the POM a code change that can be vetoed? Angles dancing on the head of pin, bleh. Forget I just said that :) Can you only veto code? What about other kinds of artifacts like images, documentation, and so on. Perhaps our process should be more precise.) So: Is a VOTE required to change our platform requirement to Java 6 from 5? Because subsequence code changes can be vetoed, it seems like the simplest thing to do. So my key question is: if/when a VOTE is called to change our platform requirement to Java 6 from 5, is that vote veto-able or is all that is needed is the usual three +1 binding votes? As we all know, strictly speaking, a release is not vetoable, all you need are three +1s (but there can be -1s to code changes before the release). If such a VOTE gets a -1 and the veto's "technical justification" is that the change is "unnecessary", then IMO that does not qualify as a "technical justification". Any help is appreciated. Thank you, Gary > On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 9:32 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 9:19 AM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On 25 February 2012 14:05, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > Right now, in trunk, we have: > >> > > >> > Description Resource Path Location Type > >> > The method getInstance(Locale) is undefined for the type > >> > DateFormatSymbols FastDateParser.java > >> > /commons-lang/src/main/java/org/apache/commons/lang3/time line 352 > >> > Java Problem > >> > > >> > Because we are using (still) some Java 6 code for this recent > >> contribution. > >> > >> > >> This one is trivial to fix: > >> > >> DateFormatSymbols symbols= new DateFormatSymbols(locale); > >> > >> > Let's stop this Java 5 craziness in trunk and update to Java 6. > >> > > >> > Ready, set, ... go? > >> > >> -1 > >> > >> Completely unnecessary in this case. > >> > > > > Really? IMO, this process is unnecessary: > > > > - A developer sees a feature/bug that needs attention and takes the time > to > > develop it, test it and submit a patch using current technology, Java 6, > > not even 7. > > - The patch is rejected because it is a Java 6 patch > > - A developer redoes the patch for Java 5 and the code is committed to > trunk > > - I find that the code is still not right for Java 5 and suggest we move > to > > Java 6. > > - A developer changes the code AGAIN for Java 5, finally getting it > right. > > > > This shows to me that we have created -- intentionally -- an impediment > for > > people to contribute to this project. > > > > Java 5 is dead and no one is forced to use a new version of this project > > that requires Java 6. > > > > Gary > > > > > >> > IMO, I do not think this requires a formal vote, but we can have > one... > >> > > >> > Gary > >> > > >> > -- > >> > E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org > >> > JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: <http://goog_1249600977>http://bit.ly/ECvg0 > >> > Spring Batch in Action: <http://s.apache.org/HOq>http://bit.ly/bqpbCK > >> > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com > >> > Home: http://garygregory.com/ > >> > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org > > JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: <http://goog_1249600977>http://bit.ly/ECvg0 > > Spring Batch in Action: <http://s.apache.org/HOq>http://bit.ly/bqpbCK > > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com > > Home: http://garygregory.com/ > > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > -- E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: <http://goog_1249600977>http://bit.ly/ECvg0 Spring Batch in Action: <http://s.apache.org/HOq>http://bit.ly/bqpbCK Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com Home: http://garygregory.com/ Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
