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 0B6AB98B8 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2013 01:24:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 75250 invoked by uid 500); 6 Mar 2013 01:24:29 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-commons-dev-archive@commons.apache.org Received: (qmail 75168 invoked by uid 500); 6 Mar 2013 01:24:29 -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 75159 invoked by uid 99); 6 Mar 2013 01:24:29 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 01:24:29 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of sebbaz@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.44 as permitted sender) Received: from [74.125.82.44] (HELO mail-wg0-f44.google.com) (74.125.82.44) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 01:24:25 +0000 Received: by mail-wg0-f44.google.com with SMTP id dr12so6761491wgb.35 for ; Tue, 05 Mar 2013 17:24:04 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:content-type; bh=XKvkaobFemwkOTLObpPsbjmNGwnyh66XrFhvo9tZv+g=; b=k+sxjLZFN3jQ3pKuCwCafXgjHsU7c/dw+YTVu8JHvq+EYgIENUGNJj9VXfOBWsbWoP GGrdL/ZpLJmpzVsljX5UecwpkIV4miMYUVmxqtnrD1ZbRVxNUrOE0N9KMe+SVieSVcYa aoFya4UQTd03aneugaR+2vOOxiDVOWtj9Wsgz9v/HkjfURaAQnqV4KsyZTLeKCZfat2+ nEGbH19QEZ5bLRyOQoUTGOfpKwjAhbyeMy2nuMvYLGY6EjDPU3lZJWV8gtRZroVEWsgA OlH6QI1PBOxOtEVNtsjH2kUhXm6ME7ulfMNEpyXTNU4oaY/BQ+Sgy6FShNdyXFVkM0rT tvHQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.103.72 with SMTP id fu8mr43207458wjb.42.1362533044035; Tue, 05 Mar 2013 17:24:04 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.194.61.236 with HTTP; Tue, 5 Mar 2013 17:24:03 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 01:24:03 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [fileupload] drop JDK1.3 support, update to 1.5 and bump to 2.0.0 From: sebb To: Commons Developers List Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On 5 March 2013 20:56, Simone Tripodi wrote: > Thanks both Gary and Sebb, > >> It seems very unlikely that anyone will still be running Java 1.3 or >> Java 1.4, so the change to 1.5 is not likely to concern users, even >> though it is a bit of a jump. >> Is the addition of generics sufficiently significant? > > what you said makes perfectly sense, 2.0.0 is not justified ATM, I > just had in mind the [digester] case, which had to be an exception, > once the [pool] case came back in my mind, it reminded me the right > workflow. > > I don't have enough time to do a major rewrite, I am rolling back the > version to 1.2.3 and do minor updates. Why not 1.3 ? Or at least wait until you see how much is changed before deciding whether it deserves a point release or a minor release bump. > Thanks again, > -Simo > > http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ > http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/ > http://twitter.com/simonetripodi > http://www.99soft.org/ > > > On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 9:35 PM, sebb wrote: >> On 5 March 2013 19:57, Simone Tripodi wrote: >>>>> Just for the record: I don't intend to do a major rewrite ATM, just >>>>> update and bugfix. >>>> >>>> So why the change to 2.0? >>> >>> I intend to add at least generics, where possible - in the past, the >>> introduction of generics in digester justified the update from >>> digester-1.8 to digester-2.0. >>> >>> Is the generics introduction enough to justify the major bump? >> >> AFAIK, it's not covered by the Commons conventions: >> >> http://commons.apache.org/releases/versioning.html#Major_Releases >> >> I'm not against bumping to 2.0, but I'm not sure it's necessary here. >> >> Does a bump give the right impression to end users? >> >> It seems very unlikely that anyone will still be running Java 1.3 or >> Java 1.4, so the change to 1.5 is not likely to concern users, even >> though it is a bit of a jump. >> Is the addition of generics sufficiently significant? >> >>> TIA, >>> -Simo >>> >>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ >>> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/ >>> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi >>> http://www.99soft.org/ >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org >>> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org