On May 6, 2016 2:45 AM, "Jörg Schaible" <joerg.schai...@gmx.de> wrote: > > Hi Josh, > > Josh Elser wrote: > > > Jörg Schaible wrote: > >> Jörg Schaible wrote: > >> > >>> > Hi Josh, > >>> > > >>> > Josh Elser wrote: > >>> > > >>>> >> Oh, well then! No pressure:) > >>>> >> > >>>> >> I'll have to find some time to re-read all of the conversation > >>>> >> between Jörg and Stian, but my initial reaction is the same as what > >>>> >> you were implying: compatibility across more JVMs would be great, > >>>> >> but shouldn't block this 2.1 release. > >> > >> Just an additional remark: Compatibility across more JVMs*is* an issue, > >> since there are platforms where you have no other choice (IBM AIX, Mac, > >> most Linux distributions use OpenJDK by default). > >> > > > > Is 2.1's compatibility across JVMs worse than 2.0's was? > > It passed last time. We have now new JDKs though and don't support the Java > 5 ones anymore and have some new tests. > > > What are the > > guarantees put forth by those involved with commons-vfs for > > compatibility WRT JVMs? > > If issues are reported we already identified as problem with the JDK, we can > simply relax and give an appropriate pointer. This is e.g. the case for > commons-io where the IBM JDKs fail with UTF-16LE. > > > I'm not nit-picking JVM support -- I'm nit-picking it's severity to > > block v2.1 for being released. > > As said, I do not block it, but for *my* vote, I want to know, why some JDKs > fail. > > Cheers, > Jörg
Great, thanks for clarifying. Let's deal with this at the earliest convenience after 2.1.
