cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joerg Heinicke <joerg.heini...@gmx.de>
Subject Re: [Result] [Vote] Java 5 as minimum JDK requirement
Date Thu, 17 Aug 2006 22:36:11 GMT
On 15.08.2006 22:18, Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:

> Now if experiments with retroweaver/retrotranslator show that we can use 
> Java 1.5 _and_ produce libraries that work in a Java 1.4 environment, 
> the above problem should be resolved and Joerg should be able to retract 
> his veto. Right Joerg?
> 
> In such a case (i.e. if Joerg retract his veto) we would not need a new 
> vote for starting to use Java 5.
> 
> Now, AFAIU retroweaver/retrotranslator have some (small) limitations, so 
> we probably would need a new proposal that says that we use the subset 
> of Java 5 supported by retroweaver/retrotranslator.

Yes, especially with your new proposal I would retract the veto. But 
this addition is not unimportant as it shows that we care about our user 
base. It means we have tested our code base and it runs with the help of 
retro* in Java 1.4.

Without the addition it's a bit like "There are tools that can make 
this. See, if you can get tehm running. Maybe they solve your problem." 
And nobody would probably care about it as there is no such clear guide 
line.

> Now something about vetoing:

...

> To me it seem to put a lot of emphasis on reaching a consensus. Right 
> now we have a veto that most of the community don't agree with. That is 
> far away from consensus and is IMO _not_ an acceptable situation from a 
> community health POV. This means that we have to continue to work until 
> we find a solution that we can get a consensus around.

 From the community health POV I don't think we are that bad. Even IF 
the veto stands at the end, we had a good discussion with very different 
arguments. That we would not have agreed in this case does not mean that 
we have to worry about community health. And we are still working on an 
acceptable solution for ... everyone ... me :) Your proposal above 
strongly hints on it.

Btw, this was one of the few threads where I looked forward to every new 
mail. Other that huge threads often get unsettled, unorganized, 
confusing or boring. It also was not a "one vs. all", but often people 
that do not agree with my position in general stand with me in some 
aspects. It was really fun :) Thanks.

Jörg

Mime
View raw message