On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 2:50 AM, Jörg Schaible <joerg.schai...@scalaris.com>wrote:
> Julius Davies wrote: > > >>> >> Nothing of this (including minimum requirement of Java 5) requires > >>> >> automatically 2.x. As long as the API is *upward* binary compatible, > >>> >> you can > >>> >> improve the implementation using this features, adding new methods > or > >>> new > >>> >> classes. Even generics can be added to some extend in a binary > >>> compatible > >>> >> way. This has been done for dbcp and there we deliver due to JDBC > 3/4 > >>> even > >>> >> two versions. > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> > I feels like jumping to Java 5 is important enough to go to calling > it > >>> 2.0. > >>> > >>> +1 agreed; it's a non-trivial change to introduce generics. > >>> > >>> > We could keep it 1.6 until something breaks... > >>> > >>> Dunno what you mean by that. > >>> > >> > >> I thought that we could call it 1.6 until a break in API would justify > >> 2.0. > >> > >> But, nevermind, because I think we all agree on calling it 2.0 with Java > >> 5. > >> > >> Gary > >> > >> > > > > Or let's use Sun style versioning, and call the next version 6.0 !!! > > (while still calling it 1.6 in the tag...) > > > > ;-) ;-) ;-) > > > > ps. Just to avoid confusion with my silly joke, I am +1 to Java5 and > > calling it 2.0 and trying our utmost to preserve drop-in reverse > > compatibility. > > fine, just don't drop this last requirement light-heartedly ;-) > What about dropping deprecated items? That should be OK in a 2.0. I was planning on doing that today. That does not preserve drop-in reverse compatibility but we do it in major releases. Gary > - Jörg > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > -- Thank you, Gary http://garygregory.wordpress.com/ http://garygregory.com/ http://people.apache.org/~ggregory/ http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
