-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gesendet am: Donnerstag, 20. März 2003 08:26
An: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Betreff: Re: [VOTE] JDK 1.1 support
If there is a serious bug in 1.5.3 (like not detecting Windows 2007 on
JDK 2.9) long before we are ready
--- Gus Heck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Steve Loughran wrote:
I'm very happy with the move. I just don't think we should use this
as
an excuse to go s/Hashtable/HashMap/ s/Vector/ArrayList/ through
all the
I would agree that this type of conversion is of limmited value.
Just a side
+1
On Wednesday, March 19, 2003, at 01:45 AM, Conor MacNeill wrote:
Hi,
This is to formalize the discussions which have gone on on the dev and
user
lists. Please indicate your vote. Everyone is free to vote but only
committer
votes are binding.
Ant 1.6 will require JDK 1.2 to compile and
On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 06:13 pm, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
-0 and +1 on doing it after 1.6. I think this is a majority vote,
isn't it?
:-). I guess so, although I'd like to see consensus anyway. Your -0 isn't a
veto, in any case. Do you have some reservations? Is it just a timing issue?
+1 on
+1
-Original Message-
From: Conor MacNeill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 12:45 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [VOTE] JDK 1.1 support
Hi,
This is to formalize the discussions which have gone on on the dev and
user
lists. Please indicate your vote
On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Conor MacNeill [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 06:13 pm, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
-0 and +1 on doing it after 1.6. I think this is a majority vote,
isn't it?
Your -0 isn't a veto, in any case.
I know, and I wouldn't want it to be one.
Do you have some
+1,
and about freaking time too... :)
Conor MacNeill wrote:
Hi,
This is to formalize the discussions which have gone on on the dev and user
lists. Please indicate your vote. Everyone is free to vote but only committer
votes are binding.
Ant 1.6 will require JDK 1.2 to compile and build.
- Original Message -
From: Conor MacNeill [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 22:45
Subject: [VOTE] JDK 1.1 support
Hi,
This is to formalize the discussions which have gone on on the dev and
user
lists. Please indicate your vote. Everyone is free
Steve Loughran wrote:
+1
At the same time, I dont see a need to run into refactoring everything we
have today to move up to 1.2 support, 'just because we can'. It'll make it
that much harder to back port patches to the 1.5.x codebase
+1 on your comment ( and a preemptive -1 on changing
Dominique Devienne wrote:
Given the above, there are no reasons to limit the 1.6 code base from
*any* change that's JDK 1.2 (Java 2) compatible. That includes moving
everything to the Java 2 Collections.
As long as you don't break the public API.
There are quite a few places where Hashtables
Steve Loughran wrote:
I don't see reasons to try to back-port fixes made on 1.6 to the 1.5.
Only
bugs identified by people running JDK 1.1 should make it to the 1.5
branch.
This should be the only activity going on in that 1.5 branch.
to date we are putting fixes to the 1.5 branch into 1.5.x,
11 matches
Mail list logo