On 30 March 2012 00:36, Jörg Schaible <joerg.schai...@gmx.de> wrote: > Gary Gregory wrote: > >> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Christian Grobmeier >> <grobme...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> +1 on the move to java 6 >>> >>> we should consider to go to 3.0... its a breaking change... but i >>> leave it up to you >>> >> >> Since you are the second person that suggests it, this Java move on this >> particular component could be a 3.0. I can go for that. Thoughts from >> others? > > Normally 3.0 would mean, that we can no longer provide this version as a > binary drop in (at least for Java apps running JDK 6).
Not necessarily. 3.0 could just mean that there have been major (but compatible) changes to the code. Or perhaps the code used to require Java 1.3 and now requires Java 1.6. In which case a major version bump might be appropriate. > Just upgrading the JDK does not mean that we have to break the API. Agreed. > Then 2.3 is the better choice. In this case 2.3 seems more appropriate (unless there are plans I've not seen!). However, a compatibility break would require a major version bump. > - Jörg > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
