On Jan 17, 2008 12:19 AM, Bruce Atherton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Peter Reilly wrote:
> > There are a woe-full amount of java 1.3 users as well..
> >
> > Peter
> >
> >
>
> And of 1.2 users that we abandoned during the 1.7 release. But the
> thinking at that time, and I think it holds up here as
Peter Reilly wrote:
There are a woe-full amount of java 1.3 users as well..
Peter
And of 1.2 users that we abandoned during the 1.7 release. But the
thinking at that time, and I think it holds up here as well, is that if
those users are too conservative to move beyond a JVM which has now
On Jan 16, 2008 10:28 AM, Steve Loughran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Peter Reilly wrote:
>
> > I do not think we should do this.
> > As far as I know, there is no super compelling reason to make ant only
> > work on java 1.4 +,
>
>
> I was curious as it is a lot easier to do relative URLs with the
Peter Reilly wrote:
I do not think we should do this.
As far as I know, there is no super compelling reason to make ant only
work on java 1.4 +,
I was curious as it is a lot easier to do relative URLs with the
java.net.URI class, which is java 1.4+ only
java5, on the other hand
we s
Hi,
> Strange that there are deprecated warnings even on 1.3 ...
> But the build works :)
I'm pretty sure that the tests don't though :(
Kev
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PRO
Hi all,
> To me, the super-compelling reason is that if we claim to support Java
> 1.3, then we have to make sure to test against it on all supported
> platforms. This is a lot of extra work (on top of the testing for 1.4,
> 1.5, and 1.6), particularly if none of us has Java 1.3 installed. This
>
To me, the super-compelling reason is that if we claim to support Java
1.3, then we have to make sure to test against it on all supported
platforms. This is a lot of extra work (on top of the testing for 1.4,
1.5, and 1.6), particularly if none of us has Java 1.3 installed. This
has bitten us i
On Jan 15, 2008 12:51 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >>> 2. What is the minimum version of Ant that 1.8 is targeting?
> > >> I'm not sure whether we've made any decision to change what we have
> as
> > >> a minimum requirement for 1.7.
> > >
> > > we dropped 1.2, so it is 1.3
> > > http://marc
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
this is a silly question, but I have forgotten the current values
1. What is the minimum version of Ant that 1.7.0 supports?
In theory the answer is 1.2, but I doubt that anybody really still has
an environment to try that.
2. What is the minimum version of Ant that 1
