Personally I think we could consider releasing 3.0.6 with jdk6 requirement and leave jdk5 altogether. And that's for plugins too :)
Kristian 2014-10-29 7:33 GMT+01:00 Baptiste Mathus <[email protected]>: >> no outstanding change in 3.2.x that blocks 3.1.x users from upgrading to > 3.2.x, isn't it? > > Didn't double checked, but IIRC 3.1.1 still uses JDK5. 3.2.x uses JDK 6. > That may be a change you want to have in mind, though I personally don't > care about JDK 5. > > +1 indeed. > > Cheers > > Le mer. 29 oct. 2014 03:24, Hervé BOUTEMY <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > we currently propose 3 versions: 3.0.5, 3.1.1 and 3.2.3 > which suppose we may release 3.0.6, 3.1.2 and 3.2.4 in the future > > I see why we would release 3.0.6: Aether change force some users to stay to > 3.0.x, and I started to define some backports I'd like to put in it [1] > > But I don't see why we would release 3.1.2: AFAIK, there is no outstanding > change in 3.2.x that blocks 3.1.x users from upgrading to 3.2.x, isn't it? > > > Then IMHO, we should remove 3.1.1 from top download links, and only propose > 3.0.5 and 3.2.3 > This wouldn't only make our roadmap easier to understand > > Any objection? > > Hervé > > [1] > http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=10500&version=20703 > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
