On 2011-07-21, sebb wrote:
However just doing that without adding @Override and minimal generics
will result in compilation warnings; it seems wromg to release source
that does not compile cleanly.
The zip64 branch now requires Java5 but I'm having a hard time seeing
any compiler warnings.
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Christian Grobmeier
grobme...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Henri Yandell flame...@gmail.com wrote:
I think the argument is the other way. You should be explaining why
you wouldn't simply just move to Java 5.
+1 - Java 1.4 must die now.
I think the argument is the other way. You should be explaining why
you wouldn't simply just move to Java 5.
+1 to JDK 1.5 minimum.
Hen
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 9:04 PM, Stefan Bodewig bode...@apache.org wrote:
Hi,
no, this is not about generics or enums or ...
This time it is methods added
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Henri Yandell flame...@gmail.com wrote:
I think the argument is the other way. You should be explaining why
you wouldn't simply just move to Java 5.
+1 - Java 1.4 must die now.
+1 to JDK 1.5 minimum.
+1
If we lift up to 1.5 as a minimum what about lifting to
Hi all guys,
I'm +1 to Java5 too.
And IMHO many other should follow the same path :P
Have a nice day, all the best!
Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://www.99soft.org/
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Christian Grobmeier
grobme...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at
On 2011-07-21, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
If we lift up to 1.5 as a minimum what about lifting to compress 2.0?
Depends on what we want to do. If we want to break BWC by introducing
genrics, then let's do that. I am currently withholding some work I
started to get the permissions stuff
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Stefan Bodewig bode...@apache.org wrote:
On 2011-07-21, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
If we lift up to 1.5 as a minimum what about lifting to compress 2.0?
Depends on what we want to do. If we want to break BWC by introducing
genrics, then let's do that. I am
On 2011-07-21, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Stefan Bodewig bode...@apache.org wrote:
On 2011-07-21, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
If we lift up to 1.5 as a minimum what about lifting to compress 2.0?
Depends on what we want to do. If we want to break BWC by
On 21 July 2011 10:19, Stefan Bodewig bode...@apache.org wrote:
On 2011-07-21, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Stefan Bodewig bode...@apache.org wrote:
On 2011-07-21, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
If we lift up to 1.5 as a minimum what about lifting to compress 2.0?
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 5:19 AM, Stefan Bodewig bode...@apache.org wrote:
On 2011-07-21, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Stefan Bodewig bode...@apache.org wrote:
On 2011-07-21, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
If we lift up to 1.5 as a minimum what about lifting to
I like the idea of many smaller consecutive releases (release early,
release often) instead of a big bang release.
For example:
- 1.2: Current trunk to gather bug fixes
- 1.3: Zip64 (Java 5)
- 2.0: Break compatibility, generics, and so on.
+1, i like that approach very much!
Hi,
no, this is not about generics or enums or ...
This time it is methods added in the classlib, in particular
java.util.zip.Inflater#getBytesRead and friends which return longs
rather than ints that are returned by getTotalIn.
Since ZIP entry size is an unsigned four byte int even without
12 matches
Mail list logo
