2007/12/6, Bruno Aranda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > At the end, this is open source. I would go for 1.2 and if someone is > interested in the 1.1 version, then they are free (and more than
thats my reason for the decision not to vote :-) > welcome!) to do the job. 1.2 provides new and interesting features and > we have to keep our APIs evolving to be competitive and, moreover, > experiment/research with the technology giving it more value... > > Cheers! > > Bruno > > On 06/12/2007, Volker Weber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > i'm not going to vote here, but if i would my vote where -1. > > > > A minimum, requirement of jsf1.2 makes this worthless for me, because > > i don't think that we could switch to 1.2 the next years. > > > > The current commons-components, commons-validators (and commons-utils > > ?) are 1.1 compatible afaik. So why making a 1.1 branch later? just > > rename trunk to branches/1.1 and we are done. I already thinking about > > to use the EnumConverter in our 1.1 app. > > > > > > Regards, > > Volker > > > > 2007/12/5, Andrew Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Lets make the myfaces commons JSF API an official vote so we can have > > > a fixed time frame on this decision > > > > > > +1 [ ] -- make JSF 1.2 the minimum requirement for the new myfaces > > > commons project > > > +0 [ ] -- you don't mind supporting a 1.1 trunk in addition to a 1.2 trunk > > > -1 [ ] -- you feel that 1.1 should be required and why you feel that > > > it is needed > > > > > > My vote: +1 > > > > > > -Andrew > > > > > >
