commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Josh Elser <els...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons VFS 2.1 rc1
Date Fri, 06 May 2016 14:21:45 GMT
On May 6, 2016 2:45 AM, "Jörg Schaible" <joerg.schaible@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> Hi Josh,
>
> Josh Elser wrote:
>
> > Jörg Schaible wrote:
> >> Jörg Schaible wrote:
> >>
> >>> >  Hi Josh,
> >>> >
> >>> >  Josh Elser wrote:
> >>> >
> >>>> >>  Oh, well then! No pressure:)
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >>  I'll have to find some time to re-read all of the conversation
> >>>> >>  between Jörg and Stian, but my initial reaction is the same
as
what
> >>>> >>  you were implying: compatibility across more JVMs would be
great,
> >>>> >>  but shouldn't block this 2.1 release.
> >>
> >> Just an additional remark: Compatibility across more JVMs*is*  an
issue,
> >> since there are platforms where you have no other choice (IBM AIX, Mac,
> >> most Linux distributions use OpenJDK by default).
> >>
> >
> > Is 2.1's compatibility across JVMs worse than 2.0's was?
>
> It passed last time. We have now new JDKs though and don't support the
Java
> 5 ones anymore and have some new tests.
>
> > What are the
> > guarantees put forth by those involved with commons-vfs for
> > compatibility WRT JVMs?
>
> If issues are reported we already identified as problem with the JDK, we
can
> simply relax and give an appropriate pointer. This is e.g. the case for
> commons-io where the IBM JDKs fail with UTF-16LE.
>
> > I'm not nit-picking JVM support -- I'm nit-picking it's severity to
> > block v2.1 for being released.
>
> As said, I do not block it, but for *my* vote, I want to know, why some
JDKs
> fail.
>
> Cheers,
> Jörg

Great, thanks for clarifying. Let's deal with this at the earliest
convenience after 2.1.

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message