Deal Carsten
2013/1/31 Justin Edelson <[email protected]>: > Well again, I'm looking at Robert sending an email rather than just > creating a patch. > > How about this - put this information (modules build against Java 5 by > default, but feel free to change it by doing XYZ) in the root README. > > If no one asks about it again, then my concern will have been unnecessary. > If we get another email like Robert's asking for permission, then we > revisit this. > > WDYT? > > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 3:24 PM, Carsten Ziegeler <[email protected]>wrote: > >> I don't see why this makes contributions harder: develop however you >> want and contribute. The only minor thing is, as by default we still >> target java 5 for a module and you use java 6, the build will fail, >> you update the pom (a single property), build again and are happy. Not >> really hard. >> >> But I don't want to be a road blocker here: if the majority thinks we >> should not support Java 5 at all anymore, let's do it. >> >> Carsten >> >> 2013/1/31 Justin Edelson <[email protected]>: >> > I understand the use case, but it just seems like a hassle and makes >> > potential contributions like Robert was suggesting harder than they need >> to >> > be. >> > >> > I want people to be able to checkout the Sling source code and make >> changes >> > to it and contribute those changes back. I don't want them wasting time >> > worry about (a) how to write Java 5-compatible code or (b) whether or not >> > to update the particular module they are interested in to Java 6. >> > >> > In other words, in the balance between "something that makes it easier to >> > provide bug fixes for Java 5 users" and "something that makes it easier >> for >> > people to contribute patch", I am thoroughly on the side of the latter. >> > >> > Justin >> > >> > On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Carsten Ziegeler <[email protected] >> >wrote: >> > >> >> Yeah, but if I want to fix something let's say in commons scheduler >> >> and this is targetted for existing installations using Java 5 and I >> >> don't need any Java 5 stuff, why should I have to go through the hasle >> >> and create my own release just to have a bundle working with Java 5? >> >> >> >> Having launchpad using Java 6 and only start with Java 6 is pretty >> >> fine, using just Java 6 (and higher) for CI builds is fine as well. >> >> I'm just talking about individual modules. >> >> >> >> Carsten >> >> >> >> 2013/1/31 Felix Meschberger <[email protected]>: >> >> > Hi >> >> > >> >> > In reality, the Sling Launchpad will not support Java 5 at all. >> >> > >> >> > We could just as well have the parent POM setup API checks for Java 6 >> >> and configure the Bundle-RequiredExecutionEnvironment appropriately. >> >> > >> >> > Regards >> >> > Felix >> >> > >> >> > Am 31.01.2013 um 12:58 schrieb Justin Edelson: >> >> > >> >> >> -0 >> >> >> >> >> >> Why even try to support Java 5? Let's just say Java 6 as a minimum >> >> across >> >> >> the board and be done with it. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Carsten Ziegeler < >> >> [email protected]>wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> Hi, >> >> >>> >> >> >>> we see more and more problems with supporting Java 5 and we >> discussed >> >> >>> this several times in the past year(s?). So let's finally call a >> vote >> >> >>> and see where we all are. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> I propose to drop Java 5 support in general - we should try to stick >> >> >>> to it where possible for supporting existing installations, but each >> >> >>> module should be free to set the base to Java 6 if it makes sense. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> We should also mark the bundles which require Java 6 (I think Felix >> >> >>> proposed a way for this some time ago). >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Please cast your votes :) >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Regards >> >> >>> Carsten >> >> >>> -- >> >> >>> Carsten Ziegeler >> >> >>> [email protected] >> >> >>> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Carsten Ziegeler >> >> [email protected] >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Carsten Ziegeler >> [email protected] >> -- Carsten Ziegeler [email protected]
