Re: Language level, Class files, MRJARs & versioning (was Re: [collections][proposal] Java 7)

On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 8:37 AM, Simon Spero wrote: > Class file format is not treated as a breaking change under most versioning > approaches, including the JLS. > > The checkers I looked at that reported on class file format changes > consider it a micro level version

Language level, Class files, MRJARs & versioning (was Re: [collections][proposal] Java 7)

Class file format is not treated as a breaking change under most versioning approaches, including the JLS. The checkers I looked at that reported on class file format changes consider it a micro level version change (+0.0.1) The past few major version bumps for projects I've worked happened

Re: [collections][proposal] Java 7

On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 5:40 AM, Rob Tompkins wrote: > > > On Jul 27, 2017, at 12:53 PM, Gary Gregory > wrote: > > > > We have not in the past forced a major version and Maven coordinate > change > > when updating the Java platform. We could do that

Re: [collections][proposal] Java 7

> On Jul 27, 2017, at 12:53 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: > > We have not in the past forced a major version and Maven coordinate change > when updating the Java platform. We could do that of course. I’m a tad surprised by this. It feels like updating the minimum accommodated

Re: [collections][proposal] Java 7

git master is now Java 7. Gary On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Gary Gregory wrote: > We have not in the past forced a major version and Maven coordinate change > when updating the Java platform. We could do that of course. > > Gary > > On Jul 27, 2017 06:47, "Jochen

Re: [collections][proposal] Java 7

We have not in the past forced a major version and Maven coordinate change when updating the Java platform. We could do that of course. Gary On Jul 27, 2017 06:47, "Jochen Wiedmann" wrote: > Wouldn't that make it 5.0? (Binary incompatible change) > > Note: I am not

Re: [collections][proposal] Java 7

I think Jochen is correct wrt the major version bump. But that gets me thinking: what did Java 7 bring that is of any particular relevance for [collections]? Wouldn't it present a much larger opportunity to make the jump to Java 8? Matt On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 8:47 AM, Jochen Wiedmann

Re: [collections][proposal] Java 7

Wouldn't that make it 5.0? (Binary incompatible change) Note: I am not opposing the change, I just propose an additional change in the version number. Jochen On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 12:18 AM, Gary Gregory wrote: > Hi All: > > I propose we make Java 7 the minimum for

Re: [collections][proposal] Java 7

+1 -- time to move forward On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 1:23 PM, Dave Brosius wrote: > +1 > > > On 07/25/2017 06:18 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: > >> Hi All: >> >> I propose we make Java 7 the minimum for Commons Collection 4.2. >> >> Gary >> >> > >

Re: [collections][proposal] Java 7

+1 On 07/25/2017 06:18 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: Hi All: I propose we make Java 7 the minimum for Commons Collection 4.2. Gary - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail:

Re: [collections][proposal] Java 7

+1 On 07/25/2017 06:18 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: Hi All: I propose we make Java 7 the minimum for Commons Collection 4.2. Gary - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail:

Re: [collections][proposal] Java 7

Go for it! Amey Jadiye schrieb am Mi. 26. Juli 2017 um 05:33: > +1 > > Regards, > Amey > > On Wed, Jul 26, 2017, 3:48 AM Gary Gregory wrote: > > > Hi All: > > > > I propose we make Java 7 the minimum for Commons Collection 4.2. > > > > Gary > > >

Re: [collections][proposal] Java 7

+1 Regards, Amey On Wed, Jul 26, 2017, 3:48 AM Gary Gregory wrote: > Hi All: > > I propose we make Java 7 the minimum for Commons Collection 4.2. > > Gary >

[collections][proposal] Java 7

Hi All: I propose we make Java 7 the minimum for Commons Collection 4.2. Gary