+1 for the branch if someone wants to work on it. Arnaud On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 1:09 AM, Brett Porter <[email protected]> wrote:
> While I'd be ok with updating the base requirement, starting to make a lot > of changes to generify things should probably be kept to 2.2.x (I've seen > bugs introduced in other projects in the process due to casting, interface > breakage, etc). I agree with John's tweeted intent to keep 2.1.1 to a small > set of changes and roll it out quickly :) > > This seems as good a time as any to create the 2.2.x branch with those > java5 changes? > > Cheers, > Brett > > > On 22/04/2009, at 8:30 AM, Arnaud HERITIER wrote: > > >>> >>> >>>> Bumping the Java requirement doesn't feel like a maintenance release >>> IMHO. >>> Therefore, shouldn't we bump the Maven version to 2.2 as well and rename >>> the >>> branch or create a new one? >>> >>> +1 It's a too big change for a bug fix release >>> >> Arnaud >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > -- Arnaud
