Mailing-List: contact dev-help@commons.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of grobmeier@gmail.com designates
 209.85.216.50 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAEk_X4bqGQUTPv3evvdX7=emA0hnES3dVH-kH1xDZMqO4KyZtg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1323094640213-4160635.post@n4.nabble.com>
 <CAEk_X4bqGQUTPv3evvdX7=emA0hnES3dVH-kH1xDZMqO4KyZtg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Christian Grobmeier <grobmeier@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 18:56:06 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CAPFNckjqJZZk03joLyF117qL57UEoGy4214kSEBuTDJEzW3XZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Can the next version major version of a project require
 Java6? (i.e. drop Java 1.5)
To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 6:44 PM, ralph.goers @dslextreme.com
<ralph.goers@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> +1 to the proposal.
>
> As for moving out of commons I would expect that it would require a vote =
of
> the Commons PMC with approval from the board. I don't know why it would
> need to go through the incubator since it would have already performed
> releases here, its IP would already be cleared and presumably we would on=
ly
> make the proposal if it already had a community of its own.

I said it only because of the "community building aspect". A new tld
would be required and a working PMC must be setup. If this is would be
clear from the beginning I agree. Actually if this step would be
required, I would try to avoid the incubator as much as I can

>
> Ralph
>
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 6:17 AM, henrib <henrib@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Sorry to bug everyone again, I'm hopelessly trying to make Commons move =
a
>> little forward...
>>
>> Since a 2-person opposition never breaks the tie, a vote is in order to
>> decide whether JEXL3 (aka the next major version after 2.1, see JEXL-123=
)
>> can actually break loose of Java 1.5 compatibility. (sic)
>>
>> JEXL3 is intended to be a next major release of JEXL that cleans up the
>> API,
>> making sure the internal/public contract is crystal clear. Since it is a
>> major revamp of the API, JEXL3 is intended to be used by new/active
>> projects
>> that will be deployed on Java6 / Java7. To avoid some development cost,
>> I've
>> "blatantly" crossed another rule without much thinking by requiring Java=
6
>> for JEXL3 (instead of Java5 which is EOL).
>>
>> Since JEXL2.1 - aka the next imminent version of jexl2 - already targets
>> Java 1.5, I did not think it would start yet another fight with the rele=
ase
>> police. Was I wrong... "Why can't you supporting a EOL-ed platform for a
>> new
>> version of the project?". (Because it's not a freebie for me but no
>> matter).
>>
>> So, here we are again for some bickering and vote:
>> [+1] Yes, you may release the next major release of JEXL3 with a Java6
>> requirement
>> [-1] No, this is an important case/issue/matter/rule that we continue
>> supporting Java 1.5
>> [0] =C2=A0Don't care
>>
>> Many thanks to those who will vote for their time and patience;
>> Henrib
>>
>> PS: Is there a process to formally move a project from Commons to elsewh=
ere
>> within Apache?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://apache-commons.680414.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Can-the-next-version-maj=
or-version-of-a-project-require-Java6-i-e-drop-Java-1-5-tp4160635p4160635.h=
tml
>> Sent from the Commons - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>


--=20
http://www.grobmeier.de
https://www.timeandbill.de

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org