On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Diane Holt wrote: > --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I think we were making it happen already. There are few changes > > that are proposed, work is well under way - the only question is > > if we'll call it 1.6 or 2.0 or 3.0. > > But whether we call it 1.6 or 2.0 makes a big difference in what kind of > changes can get put through. If we're calling it 1.6, then we can't put > through any changes, eg., that break compatibility with JDK1.x. So it's > not just a question of pick-a-name -- the name makes a big difference in > regards to what it actually is.
Any change requires a majority of votes. If a majority of ant commiters believe that building on machines that have only JDK1.1 is not as important as using new features in jdk1.2 - than I see no reasons not to change it in 1.6. If we think that there is still a big number of people using JDK1.1 for building - then we shouldn't do it in either 1.6 or 2.0. The servlet spec changed the requirements between 2.2 and 2.3 ( i.e servlet 2.2 requires JDK1.1, servlet 2.3 requirs JDK1.2 ). Again - I agree using 2.0 name may be a good idea. It can signal that ant reached a certain stability, or that we'll freeze the behavior, or that we consider the next version so much better than 1.5. ( Linux moved at a particular stage to 0.90 or something - to indicate that a lot of improvements were made and was close to 1.0 ). By this criteria, I would rather call the next release ant1.9. I don't think changing requirements on JDK1.1 or SAX2 parser by itself are enough arguments. Costin -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
