I don't have any strong objections to this. Does anyone else feel strongly one way or another?
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 6:46 AM, Brian Demers <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm a little hesitent about dropping 1.6, as it may slow the adoption of 2.0 > > It is unfortunate, but 1.6 is likely to stay in production in many shops > for a few years. > > > > > On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 8:22 PM, Les Hazlewood <[email protected]>wrote: > >> P.S. I also believe Shiro 2.x should target JDK 1.7 and above. 1.6 is >> already past its public end-of-life period, and since it will take a >> little while to get a 2.0 version out, I'd hesitate to target >> something that will be even that much more out of date. >> >> Anyone feel otherwise? >> >> Best, >> >> Les >> >> On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 5:18 PM, Les Hazlewood <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > Hi dev team, >> > >> > I made the following initial changes in SVN to facilitate kickstarting >> > development on Shiro 2.x: >> > >> > 1. I moved (using 'svn move' to retain version history) the existing >> > trunk to a new 1.x branch located here: >> > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shiro/branches/1.x >> > >> > If we ever feel the need to release a 1.3 version before 2.0, this is >> > the branch where that work would exist (also continuously merging any >> > bugfixes from 1.2.x into 1.x). >> > >> > 2. I copied (using 'svn copy') this 1.x branch to what is now the >> > trunk here: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shiro/trunk >> > >> > 3. I'll be updating the poms to reflect version 2.alpha.0-SNAPSHOT >> > >> > I suspect we'll want to make some alpha and then beta releases before >> > we release 2.0.0 final. If you guys have any concerns or ideas about >> > the versioning scheme, please discuss. >> > >> > 4. I'll start extracting config-specific things (Ini-specific >> > configuration mechanisms, etc) to a separate config module. Please >> > review (and edit) >> > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/SHIRO/Version+2+Brainstorming >> > with any additional ideas related to this effort so we can discuss. >> > >> > All of the above actions are based on our previous 'Spring Cleaning' >> > thread discussion so I don't think anyone would have issues with this. >> > They are easily reversible however, so let me know if you have >> > concerns. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > >> > Les >>
