From: "Brett Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > My 2c: I would have it ready to go when 1.5 goes into first release (so get > it ready now), but not nag anyone until then. While there might be helpful > stuff, you'd want to avoid nagging people for bugs in the betas too - and it > might be hard to differentiate.
+1. I wasn't thinking of nagging, just testing. > Niclas Hedhman wrote: > >Shouldn't each project declare which JDK version to use for the build? > I think a long-term goal could be for projects to declare minimum and > maximum java versions and gumps to define in workspace.xml which > versions of java are available (and where). I definitely agree w/ the range. And Gump matching itself (or it's environment, in this case) against the projects. From: "Leo Simons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Gump has pretty much always took a "latest of everything" approach. > Changing that will be difficult. For example, I remember having to > upgrade from j2sdk_1.4.2_03 to 1.4.2_04 because xerces (was it xerces?) > wouldn't build otherwise. Yup, I think it was xerces. > The problem right now is that lots of stuff won't work against jdk 1.5 > (like Berin writes). I hope that with the final release that will be > less true. I like Brett's suggestion of waiting for 1.5 final. It seems to me, the sooner we test that, the sooner we can report bugs to Sun. :) Seriously though, I am in no great hurry, just didn't want to be behind if the community were gagging for it. BTW: It seems to me we ought be able to have N compilers available to Gump, and we ought categorize output (within a Gump tree) by the compiler (and/or class format version). Clearly components built on compiler X ought only be compiled against sub-components of same version. A brute force approach of one compiler per workspace, and multiple workspaces, is probably the easiest start. regards Adam --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
