> sorry to interfere, but shouldn't the vote be on the src package only
> ("releases be primarily based on a signed source package"), therefore
> the "binary" is just a nice topping on top and this is just a pure
> makeup failure.
>
> please correct me if I'm wrong :)
> The quote was taken from the release.html that Hadrian just posted
> before.
If I read the ASF release guidelines [1] correctly, all things a project ships
out is a release.
So because Camel ships a bin-distro, that's also a release.
[1] http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what
> I'll give it another 12 hours and if nothing changes I will close
> the vote and release 2.12.3. If within this time you convince another
> PMC member to change his vote I will cancel this vote.
I am also a fan a building against the oldest supported platform.
Would it be possible to
- build Camel against Java6 for getting the "right" class file format
- generate the html using Java7
- jar them using Java6?
Another option would drop Java6 ... But as Oracle writes [2] for Java6:
- Feb 2011: End of Public Updates Notification
- Feb 2013: End of Public Updates
- Dec 2013: Premier Support Until
BUT
- Jun 2017: Extended Support Until
[2] http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/eol-135779.html
Jan
