Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-commons-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-commons-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 906B89CE4 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 07:48:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 68498 invoked by uid 500); 30 Mar 2012 07:48:28 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-commons-dev-archive@commons.apache.org Received: (qmail 68319 invoked by uid 500); 30 Mar 2012 07:48:28 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@commons.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: "Commons Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list dev@commons.apache.org Received: (qmail 68306 invoked by uid 99); 30 Mar 2012 07:48:28 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 07:48:28 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.5 required=5.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FORGED_REPLYTO,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of jak-commons-dev@m.gmane.org designates 80.91.229.3 as permitted sender) Received: from [80.91.229.3] (HELO plane.gmane.org) (80.91.229.3) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 07:48:20 +0000 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SDWYv-0001U5-OA for dev@commons.apache.org; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 09:47:57 +0200 Received: from hsi-kbw-46-223-5-251.hsi.kabel-badenwuerttemberg.de ([46.223.5.251]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 09:47:57 +0200 Received: from joerg.schaible by hsi-kbw-46-223-5-251.hsi.kabel-badenwuerttemberg.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 09:47:57 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: dev@commons.apache.org From: =?UTF-8?B?SsO2cmc=?= Schaible Subject: Re: [io] Moving to Java 6 for version 2.3 Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 09:47:49 +0200 Lines: 26 Message-ID: References: <093B0718-87E9-4479-ADEA-B925634C0413@hoplahup.net> Reply-To: joerg.schaible@gmx.de Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: hsi-kbw-46-223-5-251.hsi.kabel-badenwuerttemberg.de User-Agent: KNode/4.7.4 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Hi Christian, Christian Grobmeier wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 1:53 AM, sebb wrot >> However, a compatibility break would require a major version bump. > > if my lib does drop support for a specific jdk, isn't that a > compatibility break? My argument is it is no longer compatible with > jdk5. The common rule has always been, that we're backward compatible, if you can replace the old jar with the new version. If this switch requires an upgrade of the environment, it's fine. The old version will (normally) run as well on the on the updated environment as the new one will. But the application itself has not to be modified or compiled. > However, please do not consider my concerns a -1 on the version name, > I am fine with 2.3 too. Updating the major version is also always a signal to users for a migration effort. Chances are nowadays high, that we use a new package name ;-) - Jörg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org