Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Message-ID: <44D97B55.4070308@apache.org>
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 08:06:13 +0200
From: Carsten Ziegeler <cziegeler@apache.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (Windows/20060719)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Vote] Java 5 as minimum JDK requirement
References: <44D88E48.7000601@apache.org>  <44D89A3E.4040708@lojjic.net>
 <1155074397.18488.31.camel@jjohnston> <44D96E9B.1070206@dslextreme.com>
In-Reply-To: <44D96E9B.1070206@dslextreme.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Ralph Goers wrote:
> The folks who are decided to maintain their blocks this way did it with 
> the clear understanding that this was the price they would have to pay, 
> so I don't think the clarification is necessary.  I can recall at least 
> one instance where a change to one of these blocks had to be backed or 
> modified because it broke the 2.1.x branch.  Remember, we voted a while 
> ago for trunk to only support 1.4 and up while 2.1.x supports 1.3, so 
> this problem already exists.
> 
Yepp, and I think as soon as we have 2.2 out, we should not share these
blocks with 2.1.x anymore as all new features should go to 2.2 only.
2.1.x is then a real maintenance branch where we only do minor
improvements and bugfixing.

Carsten

-- 
Carsten Ziegeler - Open Source Group, S&N AG
http://www.s-und-n.de
http://www.osoco.org/weblogs/rael/