Hi All,
I just noticed that Codec still requires Java 7. I will bump that to 8 and
bring in the Base 45 code that was discussed on the mailing list a while
back between now and the this weekend.
Gary
Am Fr., 22. März 2019 um 16:13 Uhr schrieb Gary Gregory <
garydgreg...@gmail.com>:
> Hi All,
>
> Now that Codec 1.12 is out, I plan on updating from Java 7 to Java 8.
>
+1
>
> Gary
>
If it were easier to maintain branches against various releases of
Java, perhaps this wouldn't be as much of an issue.
Also, philosophically, I'm already at the point where I consider Java
8 to be the "old" version of Java that's considered a bare minimum,
and new/existing projects should be runni
Indeed. I worked in a bank and in a research company, where in both at least
one department was stuck in an old version for issues with the code base or
environment policies/decisions.
Agree not the best choice, but sometimes developers simply cannot immediately
upgrade jvm.
Some managers may ev
generally
vote for updates only to releases where no Läger number of requested bugfixes
is shipped.
Gruss
Bernd
--
http://bernd.eckenfels.net
Von: Matt Sicker
Gesendet: Dienstag, März 26, 2019 8:01 PM
An: Commons Developers List
Betreff: Re: [codec] Java 8
I&#
On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 at 19:01, Matt Sicker wrote:
>
> I'd like to know what developers are both stuck in Java 7 (or earlier)
> and also have the liberty to upgrade any of their dependencies
> regardless of compatibility concerns. My thoughts are that being stuck
> in the past for one dependency ten
I'd like to know what developers are both stuck in Java 7 (or earlier)
and also have the liberty to upgrade any of their dependencies
regardless of compatibility concerns. My thoughts are that being stuck
in the past for one dependency tends to leak into every other
dependency for the same underlyi
Am 22. März 2019 19:56:29 MEZ schrieb Gary Gregory :
>On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 2:53 PM sebb wrote:
>
>> I see no reason to update to Java 8 unless continuing with Java 7
>> becomes a big hassle.
>>
>> Why penalise people stuck on Java 7 unnecessarily?
>>
>
>I see it the other way around: Why do
On Fri, 22 Mar 2019 at 18:56, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 2:53 PM sebb wrote:
>
> > I see no reason to update to Java 8 unless continuing with Java 7
> > becomes a big hassle.
> >
> > Why penalise people stuck on Java 7 unnecessarily?
> >
>
> I see it the other way around: Why
On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 2:53 PM sebb wrote:
> I see no reason to update to Java 8 unless continuing with Java 7
> becomes a big hassle.
>
> Why penalise people stuck on Java 7 unnecessarily?
>
I see it the other way around: Why do we want to handcuff new development
on a dead platforms? For new
I see no reason to update to Java 8 unless continuing with Java 7
becomes a big hassle.
Why penalise people stuck on Java 7 unnecessarily?
On Fri, 22 Mar 2019 at 15:31, Rob Tompkins wrote:
>
> That seems reasonable.
>
> > On Mar 22, 2019, at 11:23 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> >
> > This comes up f
That seems reasonable.
> On Mar 22, 2019, at 11:23 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
> This comes up from time to time and I can only offer my usual "if you want
> support for a dead version of Java, feel free to provide a PR" We can
> always provide 1.12.1 for Java 7 security fixes or other fixes deem
This comes up from time to time and I can only offer my usual "if you want
support for a dead version of Java, feel free to provide a PR" We can
always provide 1.12.1 for Java 7 security fixes or other fixes deemed
important enough.
Gary
On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 11:20 AM Rob Tompkins wrote:
> +1
+1, but there are considerable projects out there that would want us to
maintain backwards compatibility with Java 7.
> On Mar 22, 2019, at 11:12 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> Now that Codec 1.12 is out, I plan on updating from Java 7 to Java 8.
>
> Gary
--
Hi All,
Now that Codec 1.12 is out, I plan on updating from Java 7 to Java 8.
Gary
15 matches
Mail list logo
