On 24/04/2009, at 9:55 AM, Brian Fox wrote:
I agree, if we call it 2.2 because it moves to jdk 1.5 and we fix the other stuff, great. But lets keep the scope very small and limited so we can get the regressions in 2.1.0 out quickly.
I don't think there's any harm in that. Version numbers are cheap. I agree, it's important we define scope and stick to it, whether it is short or long.
But as I said before, while flipping to JDK 5 feels a bit icky, I'm kind of alright with it for 2.1.1 if we limit it in scope to just this change. Preferably not, but I don't think it's going to kill anyone.
Perhaps there is an alternative. John, what about if we retain 2.1.0 behaviour on JDK 5 for this? ie, catch an exception on a class not found and drop back with a warning in the console to use JDK 5 if you are affected by that issue. Keep source/target as 1.4.
Would that work? Cheers, Brett --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
