Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 53654 invoked from network); 18 Dec 2006 22:44:06 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 18 Dec 2006 22:44:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 75575 invoked by uid 500); 18 Dec 2006 22:44:11 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 75502 invoked by uid 500); 18 Dec 2006 22:44:11 -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 75491 invoked by uid 99); 18 Dec 2006 22:44:11 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:44:11 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (herse.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [195.186.19.65] (HELO mail20.bluewin.ch) (195.186.19.65) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:44:00 -0800 Received: from [192.168.0.103] (62.203.85.235) by mail20.bluewin.ch (Bluewin 7.3.118) id 457D6BBD00202014 for dev@cocoon.apache.org; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 22:43:38 +0000 Subject: Re: [VOTE] Drop JDK1.3 support after 2.1.10 release From: Alfred Nathaniel Reply-To: a.nathaniel@bluewin.ch To: dev@cocoon.apache.org In-Reply-To: <4586B29D.6040101@apache.org> References: <1166054138.5794.30.camel@localhost> <200612181205.40717.niclas@hedhman.org> <458650A8.7080209@dslextreme.com> <458682BD.20404@gmail.com> <4586B097.9000106@dslextreme.com> <4586B24A.1020105@apache.org> <4586B29D.6040101@apache.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 23:43:37 +0100 Message-Id: <1166481817.6027.21.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On Mon, 2006-12-18 at 16:24 +0100, Reinhard Poetz wrote: > Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > > > Perhaps we should rethink this "drop jdk1.3 support" stuff, remove the > > comment from the status file and get 2.1.10 out. > > I agree. I agree, too. The last thing I want is to hold up the 2.1.10. If I had known what I stirred up here, I would not have started it. I apologize for the short time for discusion and vote but the idea was to get it into 2.1.10. Otherwise it will stay forever. Personally I think trunk is still too immature and unapproachable that there must a way open for 2.1.11+ release. I have nothing against staying JDK1.3 compatible, only I doubt that is is still useful. I think it is simply a non-issue, and we are making life unnecessarily hard for ourselves. Hands up, who has still a working 1.3 JVM on his computer to support it? If we weren't nailed down with trunk == 2.2, it would be sensible to save face by calling the 2.1.1 already 2.2. But that is too late now... I am not so firm in ASF rules. Does the one who called the vote have the right to withdraw the motion? Or does somebody else want to call a vote to undo this vote? Cheers, Alfred.