From dev-return-91576-apmail-cocoon-dev-archive=cocoon.apache.org@cocoon.apache.org Mon Dec 18 04:27:25 2006 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 58530 invoked from network); 18 Dec 2006 04:27:23 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 18 Dec 2006 04:27:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 24817 invoked by uid 500); 18 Dec 2006 04:27:29 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 24756 invoked by uid 500); 18 Dec 2006 04:27:29 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 24745 invoked by uid 99); 18 Dec 2006 04:27:29 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 17 Dec 2006 20:27:29 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [165.98.167.227] (HELO ags01.agssa.net) (165.98.167.227) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 17 Dec 2006 20:27:18 -0800 Received-SPF: pass (ags01.agssa.net: 10.0.0.14 is whitelisted) receiver=ags01.agssa.net; client-ip=10.0.0.14; helo=[10.0.0.14]; envelope-from=agallardo@agssa.net; x-software=spfmilter 0.97 http://www.acme.com/software/spfmilter/ with libspf2-1.0.0; Received: from [10.0.0.14] (dev07.agssa.net [10.0.0.14]) by ags01.agssa.net (8.13.8/8.13.7) with ESMTP id kBI4QoBr032282 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 17 Dec 2006 22:26:51 -0600 Message-ID: <4586188A.2010409@agssa.net> Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 22:26:50 -0600 From: Antonio Gallardo Organization: AG Software, S. A. User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (X11/20061107) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@cocoon.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Drop JDK1.3 support after 2.1.10 release References: <1166054138.5794.30.camel@localhost> <200612181205.40717.niclas@hedhman.org> In-Reply-To: <200612181205.40717.niclas@hedhman.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.0.2 (ags01.agssa.net [10.0.0.1]); Sun, 17 Dec 2006 22:26:51 -0600 (CST) X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.88.7, clamav-milter version 0.88.7 on agssa.net X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on ags01.agssa.net X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Old-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL autolearn=ham version=3.1.7 Niclas Hedhman escribió: > On Thursday 14 December 2006 07:55, Alfred Nathaniel wrote: > > >> I therefore propose to declare 2.1.10 the last release with JDK1.3 >> compatibility. >> >> Please cast your votes. >> > > As Antonio points out, a vote in this fashion ain't totally kosher. We are > supposed to discuss the items and if a consensus is reached during the > discussion the vote is superflous. > > <---- discussion ----> > > Personally, I don't care about the 1.3 compatibility, as I have moved all my > involvement to Java 5, but that is IMHO not relevant. > > If we have made a prior commitment of keeping the 2.1.x compatible with > JDK1.3, then that should stand. It should not be a matter of what a handful > developers think. They are usually on the curring edge anyway, but what the > user community are depending on. It is these type of inconcistencies that > drives users away from a project, and by now Cocoon I feel Cocoon has a > rather low reputation and considered a niche and novel project that one can't > use in 'real' projects. > > If we find it hard to maintain, then let that be it and stop evolving it. > Saying that we keep evolving 2.1.11+ in JDK1.4 (assumingly backporting stuff > from 2.2.x) and on top of that maintain a 2.1.10.x line for bug fixes seems > even more work to me. > > > I would be voting -1 in behalf of unheard users. > Thanks Niclas, here we go: I vote -1 for the reasons stated above. Changing the user contracts is not fair. Best Regards, Antonio Gallardo.