Also, JDK 1.4 is really old now; it's highly unlikely that anyone is stuck on it.
But if there are other significant changes I don't object to a major version bump. On 25 April 2014 15:49, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > FWIW: We've changed Java requirements in minor releases before. > > Gary > > > On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Dave Brosius <dbros...@apache.org> wrote: > >> I think it should be 6.0 since we've changed from requiring jdk1.4 to >> jdk1.5 and that really shouldn't be done on a point release. >> >> --- >> <br type="_moz" /> >> >> >> On 2014-04-25 08:57, Gary Gregory wrote: >> >>> Either version # is fine with me. >>> >>> Gary >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Torsten Curdt <tcu...@vafer.org> wrote: >>> >>> Go go go! Thanks for looking into this :) >>>> >>>> IIRC there is so much stuff fixed and changed from 5.2 - I think >>>> calling it 6.0 expresses this better than 5.3. >>>> Especially with the changes to the visitor interface. >>>> >>>> cheers, >>>> Torsten >>>> >>>> On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Emmanuel Bourg <ebo...@apache.org> >>>> wrote: >>>> > Hi all, >>>> > >>>> > I'm currently working on the migration to Java 8 in Debian and several >>>> > packages are broken due to the lack of invokedynamic support in BCEL >>>> 5.2 >>>> > (the dreaded ClassFormatException: Invalid byte tag in constant pool: >>>> > 18). I think it's high time for a release. Even if the current code >>>> > isn't perfect it's far better than BCEL 5.2 (there are ~60 issues fixed >>>> > in JIRA). >>>> > >>>> > The code on the trunk isn't fully compatible with the previous release >>>> > due to the addition of methods to the Visitor interface. By Commons >>>> > standards we would usually change the package, however I think it's >>>> safe >>>> > to keep the org.apache.bcel package as is. The Visitor interface is >>>> > never implemented directly, I have found that projects always extend >>>> the >>>> > EmptyVisitor class instead. I've rebuilt several projects using BCEL >>>> > (ant, ant-contrib, clirr, clirr-maven-plugin, ha-jdbc, jbossas, jibx, >>>> > mx4j, xalan, maven-shared-jar, robocode) and they all worked fine with >>>> > the current snapshot. >>>> > >>>> > The code on the trunk is numbered 6.0, are we ok with that or should we >>>> > use 5.3 for the next release? >>>> > >>>> > Emmanuel Bourg >>>> > >>>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> > 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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 > Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second > Edition<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/> > JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> > Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/> > 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
