On 5 June 2017 at 17:17, Jochen Wiedmann <jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 5:20 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> I'd like us to be able to push out a new release with minimal changes >>> at any given time. If we have, for example, 1.6 as the target, and the >>> previous >>> release had 1.5 as the target, then we'd loose that ability, IMO. >>> (Think security releases.We've had quite a few in the past.) >> >> Understood, but I'm not sure why you feel the lack of a 1.6 release >> would prevent a security release. >> Surely we could just apply the fixes to the previously released code >> and change to 1.6 at the same time? > > Because the result clearly be binary incompatible to its predecessor, > and that's the whole point of such an emergency release. We'd want a > drop-in replacement.
It would not be a drop-in replacement for systems running Java 1.5, but surely it would be compatible for those running 1.6? If they are still running 1.5, the release would be no use anyway. I agree that we should ideally release 1.6 to make it quicker to release an emergency fix (and to help those stuck with 1.9+). I'm just trying to understand your reasoning. > Jochen > > > -- > The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!" > > http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
