Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-lucene-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-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 568A6633F for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 21:01:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 41784 invoked by uid 500); 13 Jun 2011 21:01:49 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-dev-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 41738 invoked by uid 500); 13 Jun 2011 21:01:49 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 41731 invoked by uid 99); 13 Jun 2011 21:01:49 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 21:01:49 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [209.85.212.180] (HELO mail-px0-f180.google.com) (209.85.212.180) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 21:01:41 +0000 Received: by pxi13 with SMTP id 13so2428786pxi.11 for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 14:01:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.12.72 with SMTP id w8mr2794993pbb.165.1307998879551; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 14:01:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bester.local ([65.78.136.75]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id y2sm4939995pbi.19.2011.06.13.14.01.14 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 13 Jun 2011 14:01:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 14:01:12 -0700 (PDT) From: Chris Hostetter To: dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: commit-check target for ant? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org : Ok, I get your point and I'm not going to force it, but I don't agree : people still running 1.5 should be able to compile from sources. I : mean: 1.5 has been dead for a longer while now; the same argument : could be made for java 1.4 or whatever most recent version has been that's an argument for changing our compatibility requirement to 1.6 -- i don't object to having that argument (not sure how i feel about the actual idea given the licensing hubub and lucene's nature as a *library* that lots of people embed in lots of apps - but i digress) but i don't see that as legitimate agrument in favor of having higher overhead for compiling then for running. for this discussion, it shouldn't matter what java version we are talking about, we could have the same argument about requiring 1.7 to compile but supporting binary releases that run on 1.6; or an argument about wether we should use a commercial tool that commiters have a license for to "build" java code from a source grammer -- the point is that as an open source project i think it's really important that *all* our users be allowed to compile from "source". -Hoss --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org